You are on page 1of 73

Journal ofhttp://jpl.sagepub.

com/Literature Planning

From Quiet Revolution to Smart Growth: State Growth Management Programs, 1960 to 1999
Jerry Weitz Journal of Planning Literature 1999 14: 266 DOI: 10.1177/08854129922092694 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/14/2/266

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Planning Literature can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jpl.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jpl.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Nov 1, 1999 What is This?

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 31, 2013

Journal of Planning Literature CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357

CPL Bibliography

355/356/357
From Quiet Revolution to Smart Growth: State Growth Management Programs, 1960 to 1999
Jerry Weitz

State sponsorship of regional and statewide growth management programs is now four decades old. Surprisingly, much variation exists among scholarly accounts of the quiet revolution and the second wave of state growth management program history. The literature has expanded rapidly as state growth management programs have evolved in the 1990s into new phases of program history: a third wave and now a subsequent era called “smart growth.” As we look ahead to newer state programs that are designed to curb sprawl and promote sustainability, it is useful to take a comprehensive look at where we have been. The state growth management literature deserves consolidation, reconsideration, and reconciliation. With almost three hundred annotated entries, this bibliography provides a thorough, but not exhaustive, review of the literature on state growth management programs. The bibliography’s primary purpose is to identify the states that are considered, or should be considered, growth management states.

B. Elements of State Programs 1. Areas of Critical State Concern 2. Development of Regional Impact 3. Local Comprehensive Planning Mandates 4. State Land Planning Agency 5. State Land Development Plan 6. Special Regional Approaches II. How Many State Growth Management Programs Are There? III. Literature on Selected States A. California B. Colorado C. Delaware D. Florida E. Georgia
JERRY WEITZ, Ph.D., AICP, held positions of senior planner for the Georgia Mountains Regional Development Center, urban growth management specialist for Oregon’s Department of Land Conservation and Development, and planning manager for Cowlitz County, Washington. He is now the planning director for Roswell, Georgia. Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 14, No. 2 (November 1999). Copyright © 1999 by Sage Publications, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction A. Historical Overview

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 31, 2013

CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 F. Hawaii G. Maine H. Maryland I. Massachusetts J. Nevada K. New Jersey L. New York M. Oregon N. Rhode Island O. Vermont P. Washington Q. Wyoming R. Other States IV. Conclusion V. Annotated Bibliography VI. Index of Programs or Legislation by State VII. Index of Terms and Concepts VIII. Author Index
I. INTRODUCTION

267

A decade ago, Daniel Mandelker (1989) argued that there are problems with existing classifications of state planning efforts. Those classification problems still remain today. Although state involvement in land use planning has certainly varied over time, scholars are literally all over the map with their descriptions and classifications of state land use programs. As a result of these classification problems, there are remarkable variations in scholarly assessments of how many states, and which states, have implemented state growth management programs. Those assessments deserve some reconsideration and reconciliation, and a new classification of elements of state growth management programs is needed. The two key objectives of this bibliography are (1) to identify the universe of significant state growth management programs in the United States since Hawaii began a new age of state planning in 1961 and (2) to determine which states are considered or should be considered growth management states. This annotated bibliography provides a classification scheme for elements of state growth management programs that is based on the Model Land Development Code (MLDC) in an effort to fill the need for a better classification system. However, this bibliography will not end the debate. Universal acceptance of the current number of growth management states and the qualifications for the status of a growth management state is largely unattainable. However, this bibliography is one of the first recent attempts to (1) determine, based on a thorough literature review, which states have been considered growth management states, and (2) classify the elements of the state growth management programs implemented in those states.

This bibliography is an extension of Weitz (forthcoming), which examines the historical evolution and structure of a limited number of state growth management programs. The bibliography takes the reference list of that work and, in addition to providing annotations for those citations, adds literature on other state programs. In addition to covering the literature on statewide growth management programs, the bibliography includes major works on substate and bistate regional growth management programs. These include, among others, examinations of the Columbia Gorge Commission (Abbott et al. 1997), the Puget Sound region (Bish 1982), the Lake Tahoe basin (Strong 1984; Nathan and Barusch 1978), Cape Cod, Massachusetts (Bollens and Caves 1994; Bollens 1990; Cape Cod Commission 1996), the Portland, Oregon region (Leo 1998; Leonard 1983), California’s coastal zone (Fulton 1993; Fischer 1985), New Jersey’s Hackensack Meadowlands (Grant 1978), and the Adirondack Park in upstate New York (Ulasewicz 1986; Graham 1981; Liroff and Davis 1981). Most articles on state growth management programs published in the Journal of the American Planning Association and Planning magazine are included in this bibliography. I also consulted Sage Urban Studies Abstracts and the Journal of Planning Literature to identify literature. In addition to coverage of the published literature, this bibliography includes abstracts for state agency publications and study commission reports from Florida, Georgia, Oregon, and Washington. A. Historical Overview State planning is not a new concept. The origins of state planning have been linked to the New Deal era and the National Resources Planning Board, and there were forty-seven states with state planning boards by 1938 (D’Ambrosi 1976). For brief histories of state planning, see McDowell (1986), Wilson and Watkins (1978), and Rosebaugh (1976). By 1960, there was renewed interest in state planning (Dyckman 1964; American Institute of Planners Committee on State Planning 1959). At least thirty-four states had enacted state planning legislation by mid-1960, but only Hawaii had a state comprehensive plan addressing land use (Gray 1961). A “new age” of state land use planning began in Hawaii in 1961 (Lawlor 1992). That new age is much better known and chronicled in the literature as the “quiet revolution” (Bosselman and Callies 1971), although the revolution in land use control did not begin in earnest until the environmental movement blossomed in the late 1960s. Scholars do not universally accept the beginning and ending dates of the quiet revolution, but the revolution generally began with Hawaii’s land use law (1961) and abruptly ended about 1976 (Weitz forthcom-

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 31, 2013

Table 1 describes six elements of state growth management programs. Thus. As with chronicles of the quiet revolution. comprehensive planning) is another element of state growth management programs. In just the last year. a second wave (1980 to 1988). areas of critical state concern and development of regional impact are two regulatory elements of state growth management programs. According to the Model Code. Other sections of the Model Code have formed the basis for state growth management programs. interest in Smart Growth programs seems to be growing exponentially. state growth management program history evolved into a third wave in the early 1990s and. state interest in sponsoring regional and statewide growth management and environmental protection programs subsided. Thus. Hence. contains provisions that are quite similar to these two MLDC sections. This sixth type of program element is called “special regional” here because of the uniqueness of approaches to regional land use planning and regulation exercised by the various states. Two sections of the MLDC’s article 7 (State Land Development Regulation)—Areas of Critical State Concern and Development of Regional Impact—have influenced the structure and content of state growth management programs. but not required. Other states adopted these MLDC provisions or some variation of these provisions as part of their state growth management programs (Table 1). review by a state land development planning agency is required (sec. the influence of the Growing Smart program is accelerating and strengthening as more and more states consider Smart Growth programs.268 Journal of Planning Literature actually preceded publication of the Model Code. Local planning technical assistance is authorized. During the late 1970s and early 1980s. and now a fourth wave called Smart Growth (1998 to present). part 1. local land development planning (or more broadly. and Vermont passed state growth management laws (Fulton 1991). Some state efforts are devoted to modernizing their planning and zoning enabling statutes. the establishment of a state agency responsible for land use planning is an integral part of each state growth management program. For more information about these periods of state growth management history. Guskind 1988). there is no universal agreement on when the second wave began and ended. the council viewed local comprehensive planning as a precondition of the exercise of much local land use regulatory authority. B. that is. when Delaware. Part 4 of article 8 describes state land development plans. Part 1 of article 8 (State Land Development Planning) creates a state land-planning agency that has authority to create one or more regional planning divisions. as of 1998. Florida’s overhaul of its growth management statutes in 1984 and 1985 ushered in a second wave of state growth management history.com by guest on January 31. however. which are required to be prepared and taken into consideration according to certain model code provisions. However. The literature on state land use programs during the quiet revolution is voluminous. In addition to the five elements of growth management programs that flow from the contents of the MLDC. Rhode Island. it varies substantially with regard to how many states adopted some sort of state land use statute or program. Washington in 1990 and 1991. For instance. entered a fourth wave—another “revolution” now Smart Growth. However. 2013 . This section provides that local governments “may” adopt a local land development plan and establishes requirements for the contents of such plans. the second wave of state growth management program history is generally considered to begin with Florida’s overhaul of its growth management program in 1985 (DeGrove 1989. including article 3. Florida’s Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972. and Maryland in 1992. yet others are introducing more significant state roles in managing growth. The state land-planning agency may be required or authorized to review and approve local land development plans. if a local government prepares a land development plan. The 1990s ushered in another “wave” of states interested in statewide comprehensive planning (Salkin 1993). Maine. each state growth management program should fall into at least ing). Local Land Development Plans.e. by part 5 of article 8.sagepub. a third wave (1989 to 1997). Currently. another category of program elements is necessary to capture or accommodate the special regional growth management programs. comprehensive) planning (American Law Institute 1974). However. The council developing the MLDC specifically rejected inclusion of a statutory mandate for local land development (i. Hence. see Weitz (forthcoming). state involvement in regional and statewide land use planning and regulation has evolved through distinct periods: the quiet revolution (1969 to 1976). and preparation of a state land development plan is another common element of state programs. 3-106). The six program elements are intended and believed to be inclusive. Hence. and with growing interest in growth management in other states.. A third era of growth management program history began to evolve with the adoption of statutes in Georgia in 1989. Two additional elements of state growth management programs flow from other parts of the MLDC. which Downloaded from jpl. Elements of State Programs The MLDC prepared by the American Law Institute (1974) is the most logical point of departure for classifying elements of state growth management programs. The second wave hit with full force in 1988.

and New Jersey (1986) 2. Delaware. and New Jersey (1985. Florida (1972. mandatory) and Oregon (1973. Vermont (1970). mandatory) and Oregon (1973. 1970) and Vermont (1970. State land development plan 2. nonbinding) 2. Specific substate program 2. Mandatory or optional 2. Land use regulations to implement local plan are mandatory or optional Local land development (comprehensive) planning 1. State land planning agency 2. Florida (1985) and Oregon (1973) 4. or in addition to. and Alaska 3. Oregon (1973) and Florida (1985) (enforced) and Georgia (1989. optional) 1. Authority to reject or approve local plans 5. Hawaii (1978). Georgia (1989. Florida (1985. North Carolina (1974. California and Nevada) and Columbia Gorge Commission (1986. Oregon and Washington) Downloaded from jpl. Oregon (1973. and/or wetland regulations Representative Example(s) of State Programs in Practice (Year Adopted) 269 Type of Program Element Areas of critical state concern 1. mandatory). 1. Mandatory for some local governments but not others 3. coastal) and Washington (1990/1991) 3. mandatory) and Oregon (1973. Review and permitting by state/ region of large-scale development 3. Florida (1975. Florida and Oregon Hybrid regional approaches (plans and/or regulations) 1. Maine (1969) Development of regional impact 1. Vermont (1973). Impact reviews are binding or nonbinding on local governments 2. New York (1971. binding) and Georgia (1989. State agency coordination State land development (comprehensive) plan 1. state planning agency 3. optional) State land planning agency 1. Georgia (1989. California (1972 and 1976. California (1964). Florida and Georgia (1989) 3. Consistency between state plan/goals and local plans is enforced or not enforced 5. Statewide planning goals instead of a plan 4. 1985.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 TABLE 1. Vermont (1972). and Georgia (1989) 2. Multistate planning and regulation 1. Oregon (1974) and Maryland (1992) 4. Authority to establish procedural and/or substantive standards for local plans and review and comment on (but not approval of) local plans 4. coastal). Mandatory or optional state or regional technical assistance for local planning. Florida (1985. Regional planning divisions/ commissions in lieu of. “regionally important resources”) and Washington (1990/1991.com by guest on January 31. and Georgia (1989. Maine (state. Florida (1986). mandatory). optional) 2. Florida (1972) and Oregon (1973). Mandatory regional planning 3. mandatory). Elements of State Growth Management Programs with Variations and Representative Examples Important Variations Possible 1. mandatory) and Georgia (1989. optional) 2. Regional and/or local approaches to critical areas regulation 3. and Massachusetts (1963. Florida (1972. Wisconsin (1966. Mandatory or optional (encouraged) 2. wetlands) 1. optional) 3. Adirondack Park Agency) 2. California (1965. mandatory). mandatory). Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1969. shorelands).sagepub. Development siting program for specific areas 1. 1973. local critical-area regulations) 3. regional) 3. not enforced) 5. Coastal. Oregon (1969. Florida. 2013 . shoreland. Hawaii (1961). State land classification plan 3.

therefore. Minnesota. 171). Oregon. as of December 1975.sagepub. South Dakota in 1974. (Healy does not include the lists of states. At least one example of a state program is provided for each variation of program element shown in Table 1. Iowa.g. For example. Utah. Rosenbaum also notes This type of state growth management program element is referred to in the tradition of the MLDC as “developments of regional impact” (Morris 1996. Maryland. Maine. Oregon. and sometimes on the basis of geography (i. similar legislation. and Wyoming). Possible variations of each program element are shown in the second column of Table 1. DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT one of the six categories. 1.g. whether they apply to all or some areas or local governments in the state). Utah. As noted above. Nevada. New York. Other variations are possible. The program elements generally vary on the basis of whether they are mandated or encouraged (i. and Virginia). and Nebraska in 1975.. Massachusetts. Maryland. Nevada. Variations in substance (e. 2013 . Meeks (1990a) finds that critical-area programs exist in nine states (California. and Wisconsin) proposed. A glossary of terms important to the description of state growth management programs is also provided (Table 2). and Wyoming).e. Colorado in 1972. intergovernmental framework (e. Rosenbaum also notes that during the quiet revolution. Florida in 1975. Pelham apparently applied a more rigorous definition that contained recognizable language from the MLDC. Virginia in 1975.. Georgia’s program includes a development-of-regional-impact program.e. local or regional). American Law Institute 1974) and “development threshold programs” (Davidson 1991). Idaho. multiple (rather than representative) examples of the various program elements are provided in Table 1.com by guest on January 31. thirteen states had passed mandatory local comprehensive planning legislation—California in 1965. some of these state critical-area programs might more appropriately be categorized as special regional approaches. Minnesota. Florida and Vermont’s state land development plans). Montana in 1975. Oregon. but failed to adopt. These states were Florida (the Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972). Hawaii. New Hampshire. fourteen states had adopted wetland protection laws. special regional. McDowell (1986) identifies a total of twenty-six states with either statewide land use planning and control or similar controls that apply only in coastal zones or only to areas of critical state concern. 2. four states had large-scale development siting legislation. wetlands or shorelands).. Florida.. Healy (1978a) suggests that nine states had “assumed the power to regulate” critical areas and twenty-four states regulated wetlands or shorelands (p. fourteen states had adopted shorelands protection legislation. as of December 1975. Where possible given the specificity of literature. Florida. North Carolina. the examples provided are not exhaustive. New York. The sixth program element. Rosenbaum (1976) finds that as of December 1975. Rhode Island in 1972. Wyoming in 1975. New Jersey. five additional states (Idaho.g. Oregon in 1969 and 1973. and Wyoming (the Industrial Development Information and Siting Act of 1975).g. Idaho in 1975. AREAS OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN Patton and Patton (1975) find that ten states (Colorado. and seven states adopted critical-environmental-areas protection legislation (Colorado. other states not included in Table 1 may have programs that contain a given element and variation. However. Utah. New York’s Adirondack Park Agency has been identified in the literature as a critical-area program but is categorized as a special regional approach in this bibliography because it combines more than one of the other five program elements. Florida. Oregon. 3. Minnesota. and West Virginia). although the reviews and findings of regional entities with regard to these types of developments are advisory and nonbinding on local governments.. Nevada.. Florida. LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING MANDATES Rosenbaum (1976) states that. State growth management programs can incorporate one or more of the elements shown in Table 1. Moss (1977) identifies an identical number. Nevada. Maryland. Arizona in 1971. Variations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Maine (the Site Location of Development Act of 1970). Vermont (1970). Minnesota. but Table 1 includes the most significant distinctions in practice. could arguably be folded into the areas of critical state concern category or other categories. North Carolina. Iowa. One state may have adopted more than one variation (e.270 Journal of Planning Literature that legislation to protect critical areas was defeated during the quiet revolution in Arizona. and approach (e. but a different set of states with critical-area programs (Colorado. and Wisconsin. South Dakota.) Pelham (1979) finds that six states had enacted significant critical-area programs (Colorado. New Hampshire. but that Oregon and Nevada had not exercised their authorization provisions. along with the date (when known) the statute or program was adopted. optional). Nevada in 1973. 1995. Georgia. Maine. Nevada. the Iowa House passed man- Downloaded from jpl. Each of the six elements of state growth management programs is discussed in greater detail below. Two other states (Delaware and New Jersey) adopted development siting legislation that applied only to coastal areas. state plan versus statewide planning goals) are also noted. He also finds that in 1975. Florida. Rosenbaum (1976) states that. some overlap is possible. and Wisconsin) had critical-area programs under way by late 1974.

” Note: Even though technical distinctions between the two remain. The second wave lasted from 1985 to approximately 1988. State agency coordination: A component of a state growth management program that “calls for state agencies [with authority affecting land use and growth] to coordinate their programs with state planning goals and/or local plans” (Porter 1996a). smart growth has more general but inadequately defined meanings. to regulate. and local growth management. at a minimum. subject to one or more qualifying conditions under which the mandate applies (based in part on Cobb 1998). urban. and exercises regulatory authority over such areas to the preemption of. region. State growth management program: A program sponsored by a state that. and industrial development” (DeGrove 1991. commercial.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 TABLE 2. Growth management: “A calculated effort by a local government. Planning and zoning enabling legislation: A state statute that authorizes cities (and sometimes counties) to establish planning agencies and planning commissions. Smart-growth laws in Tennessee and Arizona (1998) symbolize the smart-growth movement.. and (2) a state land planning agency or commission or regional commission(s) with authority to review and approve local land development (comprehensive) plans. traffic. or state to achieve a balance between natural systems— land. and conservation) (Wickersham 1996) and that may precede or substitute for a state land development (comprehensive) plan. State land classification plan: An element or component of a state growth management program (such as Hawaii’s) that classifies (but does not necessarily regulate) all land in the state into land use districts (e. 1994). or in cooperation with.com by guest on January 31. Quiet revolution: The famous term coined by Fred Bosselman and David Callies (1971) to describe the first wave of environmental and land use controls adopted by states in the late 1960s and early 1970s. maps. Special regional growth management program: A state-sponsored growth management program for a special substate or bistate geographic region that goes beyond MLDC provisions for “critical areas” to include one or more additional elements of state growth management programs. Congress relative to planning a subarea of the United States that transcends the boundaries of a state and that typically creates a unique regional land use agency to plan or regulate the use of land (based in part on Wickersham 1996). created a significant or notable regional or state growth management program. 141-42). initiated in 1992.sagepub. Model Land Development Code (MLDC): A code prepared in the 1970s to guide the adoption of a new era of state land use laws (American Law Institute 1974). Bistate planning compact: An agreement between two states and ratified by the U. combines in a single statute (1) provisions for local or regional land development (comprehensive) planning. by statute. illustrations or other media of communication setting forth local objectives. and to adopt zoning ordinances and resolutions. air. etc. whether mandatory or optional for all or just some local governments.). when Florida overhauled its state growth management laws and certain (New England) states adopted growth management programs (Weitz forthcoming).).. Local comprehensive planning mandate: A state requirement that cities or counties prepare and adopt local comprehensive plans. rural agricultural. In the context of the popular literature. Local land development plan: “A statement in words. pollution. (continued) Downloaded from jpl. Introduction).g. Development of regional impact: An element of a state growth management program in which a regional planning agency reviews or approves all development proposals that meet a certain threshold found to trigger greater than local effects (e. pioneered by Oregon. Planning consistency model: An approach to state growth management. Growth management state: A state in the United States that has. the term comprehensive is an acceptable substitute for “land development” because the Model Land Development Code (MLDC) notes that “social and economic consequences of physical development are to be explored” (American Law Institute 1974. Enabling statutes may also authorize regional planning agencies to prepare regional plans. Areas of critical state concern: An element of a state growth management program through which the state identifies environmentally sensitive geographic subareas of the state. etc. prepares a management plan. Second wave: A term originally coined by John DeGrove (xiii) to characterize the second period of state growth management program history. and water—and residential. where local governments must adopt comprehensive plans consistent with statewide planning goals and regulations consistent with their local comprehensive plans (Wickersham 1996. Smart growth: The most recent (fourth) wave of activity by states to require or encourage state. policies and standards to guide public and private development of land within its planning jurisdiction and including a short-term program of public actions. Glossary of State Growth Management Terms 271 Areal comprehensiveness: A spatial term that denotes a characteristic of a state growth management program where every acre of land is covered by a particular mandate (to plan. to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans. regional. 2013 .S.g. Growing Smart: American Planning Association’s program to modernize state planning and zoning enabling statutes. local land use regulation (based in part on Wickersham 1996).

but does not mandate. Nebraska. Rand 1992). maps. Second. Hawaii. Idaho in 1975. 23). Washington State’s mandate to plan that extends only to certain counties. completed in 1997 by the American Planning Association’s Growing Smart program. South Dakota. Maine. Cobb includes two states in his list of fifteen states that should be excluded and judges not to include one state that should be included. or within a region designated by rule and that includes a short-term program of public actions (American Law Institute 1974). with which local or regional plans (and sometimes regulations) must be consistent. and standards to guide public and private development of land within the state as a whole. Whorton 1989). and South Dakota are not discussed in the literature and despite a local comprehensive planning mandate they are not typically considered to be growth management states. Adams 1991. drawn from the list of thirteen states that mandated local comprehensive planning as of December 1975.. or local planning efforts.sagepub. is based on a county decennial population growth rate. others such as Alaska. Maryland. and the remaining ten states make planning optional (Cobb 1998. regional. unadulterated to the extent that there are no qualifying conditions under which the mandate applies (i. meaning that local governments must plan and there are no conditions attached to the mandate” (i.. New Jersey. DeGrove 1992. Kentucky. California in 1970. Florida. First. they do not unconditionally mandate local planning. which repealed its 1988 law that mandated planning and replaced it with optional planning in 1992 (Howitt 1993. but not the same as. Massachusetts. Nevada.e. However. Indeed. Substate program: A program that is less than areally comprehensive but that contains a geographic area composed of more than one political jurisdiction. 2013 . Oregon. and Washington. not all local governments in Washington State are subject to an unconditional mandate to plan. or other media that communicates objectives. an unconditional mandate to plan. during which a new set of growth management programs were adopted (Weitz forthcoming). Many of these fifteen states are well represented in the literature as growth management states. Note that Rosenbaum’s definition of mandatory local comprehensive planning legislation is not “unconditional” (see Cobb 1998) because the typical statute “requires all jurisdictions in the state which exercise land use regulatory powers to develop a comprehensive plan” (p. DiMento (1992) finds that fourteen states prohibit the adoption of local zoning ordinances without the adoption of a comprehensive plan. After considering court decisions in addition to state enabling statutes. and Vermont is voluntary (Porter 1997. and Vermont are “collaborative partnerships” rather than local comprehensive planning mandates (Berke 1998). according to Cobb (1998). policies. finds that “fifteen states make planning a mandate. usually with authority to oversee regional or local land use planning. datory local comprehensive planning legislation. illustrations.. New Jersey. from approximately 1989 to 1997. and cities within those counties. California. Cobb’s excludes Maryland. Nebraska. a review of the literature suggests that Maryland mandates local comprehensive planning (Cohen and McAbee-Cummings 1998). The most recent survey of state planning mandates. emphasis added). and Vermont). New Jersey. local planning (see Callies 1994b. Maine. Maine. twenty-five states make planning conditionally mandatory. Delaware. the list does not include several states that are commonly characterized as growth management states (i. Two observations need to be made about Cobb’s list of fifteen states that unconditionally mandate local comprehensive planning. Georgia. Idaho.e. The inclusion of states that do not actually mandate local comprehensive planning implies that unconditional mandatory local comprehensive planning is Downloaded from jpl. authorized to implement a state growth management program. Nevada. Idaho. Statewide planning goals: A set of goals intended to guide state. no strings are attached to the mandate) (based on Cobb 1998). but that legislation was tabled by the Iowa Senate. Kentucky. He classifies Georgia as having an unconditional local planning mandate even though George encourages. The fifteen states that unconditionally mandate local comprehensive planning according to Cobb (1998) are Alaska. whether a state department or commission. also have enacted laws that mandate local zoning. Third wave: A third era in the history of state growth management programs. unconditional local planning mandate). State land planning agency: An administrative arm of state government. Rhode Island.com by guest on January 31. However. Nevada in 1973.272 Journal of Planning Literature Continued TABLE 2 State land development plan: A statement in words. and Oregon in 1969 and 1973 (Rosenbaum 1976). Only six states. Nebraska in 1975. These states are Arizona in 1974. 18. This is.e. Stroud 1996). Unconditional local comprehensive planning mandate: A state requirement that cities or counties prepare and adopt local comprehensive plans. These states are almost universally included in the state growth management literature even if. local planning in Georgia.

STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN The preparation of a state land development or comprehensive plan is often an element of state growth management programs. In Vermont.com by guest on January 31. In Washington State. Regional commissions are sometimes established in lieu of. Indeed. State agency coordination is another variation of state planning that may be adopted in addition to. Maine. Vermont adopted a Capability and Development Plan under Act 85 in 1973. Vermont’s Act 250 (1970) established a state environmental board to hear appeals and multicounty districts to review development proposals (DeGrove 1984). Both entities are located within the state’s Treasury Department (DeGrove 1992). 4. an approach Oregon pioneered in 1973. As noted in Table 1. but it has not yet been developed. and to adopt state agency programs. however. Florida also prepared its first state comprehensive plan in 1978 and in 1986 completed a State Land Development Plan (Florida Department of Community Affairs 1989). Georgia’s law calls for the preparation of a state comprehensive plan. a state land development (comprehensive) plan. 26). and Vermont.sagepub. Downloaded from jpl.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 not necessarily a qualification for a state to be included on the list of state growth management programs. 5. Vermont also established a land use classification system in the early 1970s (Morris 1995). Georgia. Moss 1977). Florida established the State Land Planning Agency as part of its Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972. Local comprehensive plans must be consistent with the Rhode Island state guide (DeGrove 1992). Oregon’s Senate Bill 100 (1973) established both a Land Conservation and Development Commission and Department. Rhode Island’s growth management program (1988) includes a state guide plan. Mann and Miles (1979) note that state land classification existed in Alaska for planning purposes only. state land classification plans sometimes precede or substitute for state land development plans. New Jersey prepared preliminary (1989) and interim (1994) versions of a State Development and Redevelopment Plan (Gottlieb and Reilly 1994. Delaware. every state growth management program requires an administrative agency or commission. or in lieu of. as is Rhode Island’s program (DeGrove 1992). Designers and administrators of Georgia’s coordinated planning program have tried to integrate state agency efforts through the governor’s Development Council. Washington State’s Growth Management Act specifies thirteen state goals. Rhode Island’s Land Use 2010 Plan (enacted in 1989) includes a land capability map (Porter 1996b). Maine in 1971 (Rand 1992). Hawaii adopted a state comprehensive plan in 1978 via Act 100. Other states have designated or reconstituted existing agencies as state land planning agencies. Colorado adopted state land use policies and Idaho prepared a draft land use policy paper in the late 1970s (Council of State Governments 1978). Maine’s growth management program (established in 1988) is framed by ten statutory state goals. statewide planning goals are called “visions” (Cohen and McAbee-Cummings 1998). and Wyoming in 1975 (Pelham 1979. the Department of Housing and Community Affairs received funding and support to implement Act 200 (1988). the Department of Community Affairs was designated as the responsible state agency pursuant to the Georgia Planning Act of 1989. Hawaii. to review. Epling 1993). Trade. the Office of Comprehensive Planning was established within the Department of Economic and Community Development (DeGrove 1992). Another alternative to adopting a state plan is to prepare statewide planning goals. the Department of Community Development (now Community. and in Maine the Division of State Planning was established to review local comprehensive plans (DeGrove 1992). created in 1971 in New York State. In Maryland. In Georgia. Land use commissions were also established in Colorado in 1970 (DeGrove 1984). Maine’s program appears to require state agency reports to demonstrate consistency with the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act of 1988. or in addition to. is a state entity responsible for a substate growth management program. New Jersey established an Office of State Planning and State Planning Commission as part of its 1985 planning act (Lawrence and Lussenhop 1994). Mandatory regional planning entities exist in Florida. Oregon has a program element to prepare. as does Vermont’s Act 200 (Innes 1993). 2013 . STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY 273 One of the most common elements of a state growth management program is the establishment of a state agency or commission to direct state planning efforts. and Maryland. the failure to integrate state functional plans and regulatory approaches has been “one of the major disappointments in the implementation of the growth management system” (DeGrove 1992. The Adirondack Park Agency. In Maine. New York’s Adirondack Park Agency used a land classification approach in preparing plans and regulations for the Adirondack Park. California was preparing a comprehensive state development plan in the mid- 1960s (Dyckman 1964). Hawaii’s 1961 land use law established a State Land Use Commission and gave certain planning functions to the State Department of Planning and Economic Development (DeGrove 1984). and Economic Development) serves as the administrative agency for the state’s growth management program. Connecticut (under development in 1979). Florida has also implemented an approach to state agency coordination. a state agency or commission.

Wickersham (1996) finds that “between 1968 and 1974. Maine. Meeks’s work was published prior to passage of Maryland’s growth management law in 1992. These states are Florida. and Washington. Kundell et al. North Carolina. though most relied on permits. Maine. Patton and Patton (1975) also note that Ha- Downloaded from jpl. Patton and Patton (1975) find that as of September 1974. 3). ten. (1989) document Georgia’s unsuccessful attempt to pass vital areas legislation. Popper (1988) suggests that “by 1975. Vermont. Lewis’s map of growth management states includes Florida. Florida. scholars of the 1990s have carried forth this tradition by not distinguishing between the various elements of programs included in their lists of states with significant land use or growth management programs. the upper Midwest. 1997. Maine.e. Mann and Miles (1979) note that a “growth strategy (efficient utilization of land resources) was thought to be a growing concern in eighteen states” in 1979 (p. on the exact definition of what constitutes a state growth management program. Rhode Island. substate regional programs exist in the San Francisco Bay Area (Conservation and Development Commission established in 1965). New Jersey. and Wisconsin) are better characterized as variations of Areas of Critical State Concern programs (i. twenty-two states had land use planning programs under way. Michigan. Bistate planning compacts exist for regional planning and regulation in the Lake Tahoe basin in California and Nevada (Strong 1984) and the Columbia River Gorge in Oregon and Washington (Abbott et al. Maine. Moss (1977) finds that nine states (Colorado. Vermont. Michigan (shorelines management enacted in 1970). Burby and colleagues (1993) report that “ten states have adopted statewide comprehensive growth management programs that either require or strongly encourage local governments to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans” (p. Rubino and Wagner (1972) find that ten states had adopted major forms of state land use management: Hawaii (land use law enacted in 1961).sagepub. New York.. Oregon. 51). or administrative task forces” (p. 2013 . Oregon. Nevada. including Florida. and Wisconsin (shoreline zoning law of 1965). Maryland. Hawaii. Florida. 293). Maine. Maryland. every state had some type of land-use controls.. New Jersey. Vermont. SPECIAL REGIONAL APPROACHES The literature refers to several special regional programs that in many instances go beyond the regulation of critical environmental areas. California. New Jersey. Oregon. Martha’s Vineyard (established in 1974) and Cape Cod (established in 1989). Meeks (1990a) finds that state legislative activism in the area of growth management exists in nine states— Florida. Georgia. such as Vermont and Maine. and Washington (and was probably intended to include Rhode Island). Georgia. Liberty’s list differs in its inclusion of Virginia and its exclusion of Hawaii and Rhode Island. 25A-12). Maine (state management of unorganized territories in 1969). and Washington. For example. eighteen. Delaware (Coastal Zone Act of 1971). Virginia (Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act of 1988). Oregon. Massachusetts. and Wyoming) had adopted a state land use program of some sort. and Vermont have “passed important procedural reforms for state land use planning and control” and that “more than thirty states are actively exploring alternative approaches through citizen commissions. 50). 322). Vermont (site development review established in 1970). Colorado (Land Use Act of 1971). without making distinctions as to program elements or types. Nevada. The literature of the 1970s indicates that scholars have intermingled the various elements of state growth management in their discussions of which states have land use and growth management programs. appear to be better classified as Development of Regional Impact programs (i. Weatherby and Witt 6. In addition to New York’s Adirondack Park Agency. HOW MANY STATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ARE THERE? The literature contains many references to the number of states with significant state land use programs. the quiet revolution had achieved at least twenty new environmentally-oriented state land use laws. Oregon (mandatory planning and zoning enacted in 1969).e. Massachusetts. As described below. Adler 1994). large-scale development review programs). eight states had much broader state-wide land-use control programs” (p. legislative hearings. II. Some of these efforts undoubtedly failed shortly after they were established. Maryland. or another number of states with notable programs during the quiet revolution depends. Georgia. Whether there were nine. Oregon. Hawaii. Florida. New Jersey. Hawaii. Maine. Vermont. of course. McDowell (1986) states that “by the mid-1970s. Massachusetts (critical-area program established in 1963). and the Hackensack Meadowlands (established in 1968) and the Pinelands (established in 1979) in New Jersey. Lewis (1992) reports that ten states have adopted statewide growth management laws. Nevertheless. and Vermont passed statutes that shifted considerable regulatory power over land use to the state or regional level” (p. New York (Adirondack Park established in 1971).g. and the far West” (p. Hawaii. Oregon. mostly in the Northeast. critical-area programs). Others. Rhode Island. Oregon.. Vermont.274 Journal of Planning Literature waii. Georgia.com by guest on January 31. Delaware. Liberty (1992) cites nine states that have adopted growth management programs or fundamentally revised existing programs. Massachusetts. Some of these programs (e. Maryland. and Washington.

Colorado.sagepub. Meeks 1990a). Vermont. As with scholars of the quiet revolution and the second wave of state growth management program history. Arizona (Colton and DiTullio 1999) and Tennessee (American Planning Association 1998b. North Carolina. Hawaii. A wave of “smart growth” legislative proposals appear to be underway now in other states across the nation. 329). and West Virginia. Burby and colleagues 1993. but the likelihood of its passage at the time of this writing is considered doubtful. New Jersey. Massachusetts. and interest in containing sprawl has surfaced in Maryland. prior to the enactment of Maryland’s 1992 growth management law. Peirce 1998) adopted significant mandates for local growth management in 1998. Yet. and Oregon” (p. House Bill 1468. He is one of the few scholars who explains why states such as Georgia. and Washington. although state roles in these programs are at present weak or uncertain. Rhode Island. Massachusetts. Oregon. Colorado is excluded from Nelson’s list because the Colorado legislature abandoned growth management in the 1970s. but he does not provide a list or map of those growth management states. Note that Bollens’ list includes three states (California. Oregon. Maine. 237). These states are California. Diamond and Noonan (1996). and other states are excluded by Nelson because their programs apply only to small areas established by separate statutes. Rhode Island. and Washington” (p. New Jersey. in some cases. Rhode Island. Nelson (1995b) differs from the norm by including California and excluding Georgia. Maine. Nelson (1992b) finds that state programs in Colorado. These states include California. Georgia. Florida. 213). and Vermont (Leo et al. Hawaii. Massachusetts. Vermont. Hawaii. was introduced in North Carolina’s General Assembly in 1999. New Jersey. Kansas. These programs are not generally considered to constitute statewide programs. Connecticut. South Carolina adopted the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act of 1994.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 (1994) indicate that as of April 1991. Maryland. Vermont. Maryland. 74). Other scholars identify some of the same states but add different states to their lists. 230). the literature often quantifies the number of states that have implemented state growth management programs. Vermont. However. For example. Florida. and Washington) had adopted comprehensive statewide growth management laws. Lewis 1992. Maryland. In an earlier work. Porter (1996b) suggests that nine states (Florida. New York. according to Burchell (1993). Salkin (1993) identifies eleven states that “have programs that encourage or require statewide comprehensive planning or growth management plans: Delaware. Vermont. Salkin’s (1993) list is similar to the widely cited list of ten states recognized for their state growth management programs (Weatherby and Witt 1994. Florida. New York. As noted above. Georgia. Hawaii. Maine. Baer (1997) indicates that “at least fourteen states now have comprehensive growth programs. Nelson and Duncan (1995) indicate that thirteen states have state-comprehensive growth legislation. also require hazards elements of those plans” (p. New York. and Salkin (1993) find that statewide growth management legislation has recently been considered in California. and Colorado are excluded from the designation of growth management states. Washington. Maryland. Meeks (1990a) reports that seven states have growth strategies commissions or have held conferences with an intent to develop growth management legislation. Salkin also recognizes Delaware. Maine. DeGrove (1992). Oregon. Minnesota. Note that he excludes Hawaii. Oregon. but excluding Hawaii. Rhode Island. 1998). which revamped the state’s planning enabling legislation (Sullivan and Pelham 1995). Maryland. Pennsylvania. more recent reports from scholars exhibit some variation in the number of states with statewide growth management programs. that enabling act reform does not appear to constitute a growth management act. Maine. Rhode Island. Maine. Pennsylvania. but scholars typically do not define why they include certain states but excluded others. Oregon. Bollens (1993) notes that thirteen states have since 1970 “independently established comprehensive (multifunctional) planning legislation applicable to all their localities or to specific subareas” (p. Burby and Dalton (1994) find that “eighteen states now mandate local comprehensive plans and. Nelson (1995b) excludes Georgia because it is “really not a growth management state—yet” (p. What are the specific characteristics that qualify a state as having a state growth management program? Downloaded from jpl. New York. Georgia. and New York) that have special regional programs. Two states. either statewide or aimed at particular subareas” (p. Pennsylvania. New York. and Virginia. a growth management act. Citing Bollens (1993). New Jersey. Seventeen of twenty states located on the West and East Coasts of the United States have or are considering adoption of some kind of growth management strategy. 2013 . Virginia. Nelson (1995b) finds that California. 101). nine states (Florida. Massachusetts. including Maryland. and Washington have growth management programs. Wickersham (1994) also identifies nine states with “planning consistency model” statutes. and Washington mandate local government planning but have been ineffective. and Washington) have comprehensive 275 statewide growth management programs. Massachusetts.com by guest on January 31. and that “only four states explicitly set forth to achieve an ultimate urban form—Florida. New Jersey. Other efforts to encourage regional growth management are under way in Michigan and South Carolina. New Jersey. Georgia.

is described in Bosselman and Callies Downloaded from jpl. all states have planning and zoning enabling legislation. Colorado Colorado has had a curious and puzzling history of state land use planning. Bosselman and Callies 1971). Idaho. Kentucky. California. Maine. combines in a single statute (1) provisions for local or regional land development (comprehensive) planning (whether mandatory or optional for all or just some local governments). the apparent lack of a consistency framework suggests that it does not maintain a “comprehensive” program. Bollens (1993. Durant et al. B. If mandatory comprehensive planning for some or all local governments was sufficient to qualify a state as a growth management state. California is better known for its coastal program than for its local comprehensive planning mandate. Hawaii. LITERATURE ON SELECTED STATES There again is no scholarly consensus. then according to this literature review. Generally. The California-Nevada Tahoe Regional Planning Compact (enacted in 1969) and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency have received some attention (Strong 1984.e. To attempt to bring resolution to this issue. and Ndubisi and Dyer (1992) do classify California as a growth management state. New York’s regional growth management program for the Adirondack Park is typically excluded from lists of growth management states. another common element of state growth management programs is that virtually all of these systems are based on a state plan or state goals (Callies 1994b). Mazmanian and Sabatier 1983). Indeed. finds that consistency is the thread that holds together state growth management systems. many other states would be considered growth management states. Vermont. California’s coastal program of the 1970s and 1980s has received much attention in the literature (Bollens 1993. including Alaska.. One criterion that appears to be essential in terms of a designation as a growth management state is the state’s actual land use role. California probably deserves inclusion as a significant growth management state because of its local planning mandate (regardless of the oversight it receives) and its substate and critical-area programs. Georgia. Arizona. 1992. among others. For example. aptly called the “dean of growth managers” (Porter 1993). Colorado. 2013 . However. Fischer 1985. Callies 1994b. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission was established by law in 1965 (Godschalk 1986.sagepub. passed in 1970. (1993). For chapter-length overviews of state planning in California. However. III. as has the California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. I suggest that a state growth management program is best described as a program that. Questions about what exactly constitutes a “comprehensive” program and how many states have comprehensive programs will probably continue to be debated. at minimum. and (2) a state land planning agency or commission or regional commission(s) that has the authority to review and to approve local comprehensive plans. A state mandate that all or some local governments prepare comprehensive plans is also apparently not enough to qualify a state as a growth management program. Stone and Seymour 1993). Bosselman and Callies 1971). Oregon.276 Journal of Planning Literature And. Areal comprehensiveness (i. However. and Washington (Dean 1996. The state’s first land use act. A.com by guest on January 31. Its exclusion is probably attributable to the fact that the state has provided little oversight of local planning (Fulton 1993. Fulton (1991) finds that the state mandated that zoning ordinances be consistent with comprehensive plans in 1971. Despite the fact that California is one of the first states to mandate local comprehensive planning and that it has a well-known coastal program and has adopted innovative regional land use programs in the Lake Tahoe Basin and San Francisco Bay Area. Nelson (1995b). If the state’s role in the review of local comprehensive plans is weak or nonexistent. I have deliberately avoided trying to provide a definitive answer as to the exact number of growth management states at a given point in time to avoid contributing further to the inconsistencies in the literature. statewide versus regional or substate application) is one criterion that is often used to exclude states from the list of growth management states. Nebraska. New Jersey. Nathan and Barusch 1978. the state is typically excluded from the list of growth management states. and South Dakota. 1992). Rhode Island. it is often included on the list of growth management states (see Porter 1996b). The existence of planning and zoning enabling legislation alone is not enough to be considered growth management. John DeGrove (1993). see Burby and May (1997) and Fulton (1993). such as in California and Colorado. Maryland. DeGrove 1984. As noted in Table 1. which was established in 1967 (Strong 1984). If a state reviews local comprehensive plans or has an agency that reviews plans in a substate region. much of the literature seems to conclude that there are ten noteworthy state growth management programs: Florida. Burby and May (1997) and Fulton (1991) indicate that cities and counties were mandated to plan as early as 1937. Nelson and Duncan (1995). Lewis 1992). California California appears to be one of the first states to require and prepare a state development plan (Dyckman 1964). Burby and colleagues 1993. the state is often excluded from the list of growth management states.

Cobb (1998) includes Georgia in his list of fifteen states that mandate local planning. However. and DeGrove (1992. Delaware is frequently excluded from the list of growth management states. For chapters on Florida’s program. see Audirac and colleagues (1990). Colorado’s 1974 law gave local governments responsibility for land use and growth management and only an “ambiguous and uncertain” (p. rarely designated as a growth management state in the literature. 1989. Perhaps because it is weak on state oversight of comprehensive planning.sagepub. Pelham et al. and it has also been crippled by adverse court decisions (DeGrove 1984. titled the Quality of Life Act (Kelly 1993. For a chapter on Georgia’s coordinated planning program. not mandated. Georgia Georgia is considered to be a growth management state by almost all state growth management program scholars. including land and water policies of the 1970s (Pelham 1979. 2013 . C. 1985). West (1992) and Whorton (1989) provide additional information on Georgia. see DeGrove (1992). Nelson (1995b) is one exception. Like California. Articles about activities in the 1980s are provided by Stroud and O’Connell (1986) and Siemon and Larsen (1985). For a status report of local planning in Florida in the early 1990s. see Nelson (1990b). E. Salkin (1993) is one of the few authors who recognizes Delaware’s program and includes it in a list of growth management states. Carter 1974). The State Land Use Commission narrowly escaped abolition in 1977 (DeGrove 1984). Colorado is. Furthermore. for various reasons. For an earlier overview of Georgia’s coordinated planning program. Several major works have been written about land use and growth management in Florida. Bosselman and Callies 1971). For a critique of some of the fundamental premises of Florida’s growth management program. Delaware enacted a law that banned heavy industry from portions of its coastal zone (Kundell et al. Myers 1974a). Kundell and colleagues (1989) provide an account of land use planning in Georgia immediately prior to the adoption of the Planning Act of 1989. Downloaded from jpl.com by guest on January 31. 1984). has been described as schizophrenic (Diamond and Noonan 1996). DeHaven-Smith 1991). see Burby and May (1997). Delaware is usually not included in discussions of state growth management programs. Godschalk 1986. including the enactment of the Land Use Act in 1970 and adoption of a new land use law (House Bill 1041) in 1974 (Porter 1997. Delaware In 1971. although local planning in the state is strongly encouraged. Ndubisi and Dyer (1992) include Georgia as a case study in their analysis of the regional components of state growth management programs. Burby et al. For an analysis of the regional component of Georgia’s program.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 (1971). see Starnes (1993). Its program was found to be languishing by Popper (1988). More work is needed to determine if Delaware is a growth management state. or because it is a small state with a relatively unknown program. The program is considered to be the most comprehensive of all the states (Pelham 1993) and is one of the two most extensively studied programs (along with Oregon). DeGrove and Metzger 1993). (1993) find that Delaware and several other states mandate local comprehensive planning. see McKay (1991). The state’s approach. which provides broad land use powers to local governments but little role for the state in land use planning (DeGrove 1984). For an article about Florida’s program during the quiet revolution. the overhaul of growth management laws in the mid-1980s (DeGrove and Juergensmeyer 1986. Few if any works have been published 277 on Delaware’s state land use program. Pelham (1993). Colorado’s exclusion from the list of growth management states is probably the result of the limited state role in the review of local comprehensive plans. and other accounts (Wallis 1993. Colorado is probably justifiably excluded from the list of 1990s’ growth management states. Florida’s Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 appears to be the closest a law has come to adopting the precise language of the MLDC (Pelham 1979. even if the state has exercised considerable interest in land use in the past. Fulton 1991). even though it adopted critical-area legislation and has been found to mandate comprehensive planning (Rosenbaum 1976). yet they have not enacted comprehensive growth management legislation. DeGrove (1984) provides one of the most detailed accounts of Colorado’s land use program during the quiet revolution. 294) role for the state in the process. Articles that highlight Florida’s concurrency requirements include Stuart (1994) and Charlier (1991). Colorado’s land use program began with a brave start but failed to evolve because of partisan politics (DeGrove 1993). Patton and Patton 1975. Mann and Miles (1979) reported that Delaware was one of three states (the others are Hawaii and Maine) with a legally enforceable state land use classification. Florida Florida’s growth management program has been recognized nationally since the early 1970s (O’Connell 1986). Delaware passed a statewide growth management law in 1988. DeGrove 1984). The Georgia Department of Community Affairs (1996a) provides a five-year status report on Georgia’s program. see McCahill (1974). D.

even though it does not mandate local comprehensive planning. For significant works about Maryland’s program. Hawaii Hawaii’s land use planning program is the first and most rigorous of the state growth management programs (Callies 1994b. Bosselman and Callies 1971). The Maryland program combines critical-area regulation and the review of local comprehensive plans for compliance with state visions. 1984) and a chapter-length account (1993). Bosselman 1986). Kelly 1993. 1993. Grant 1978). Nevada is frequently excluded from the list of growth management states. Maryland is universally included on a list of growth management states by scholars writing during or after 1992. and in 1971 a shoreland zoning law was passed and the Land Use Regulation Commission was established (Rand 1992). Other scholars have recognized Nevada for its state role in land use management (Wickersham 1996. In the late 1960s a regional program was created for the Hackensack Meadowlands (Pelham 1979. Other reasons for Nevada’s exclusion may be that the state’s role in reviewing land use plans and zoning ordinances is probably limited or nonexistent. Maine passed its Site Location of Development Act. Moss 1977. and it has not exercised its critical-area provisions (Pelham 1979). established the Martha’s Vineyard Commission in 1974 (Lawlor 1992.278 Journal of Planning Literature source Protection and Planning Act of 1992. Hawaii’s land use law (Act 187 of 1961) was first chronicled by Bosselman and Callies (1971). New Jersey’s efforts to adopt a state growth management program in the 1970s were hampered by a severe eco- F. Bollens 1990). it would be as justifiable to include Massachusetts on the list of growth management states as it is to include California. In 1969. also see Cobb 1998). H. Callies has been the leading legal scholar on Hawaii’s program. However. A book devoted to Maryland’s program has apparently not been published. Cooper and Davis (1990) discuss the politics of Hawaii’s Land Use Commission. It is the inspiration and prototype for the quiet revolution (Callies 1980). even though it adopted critical-area legislation. Pelham 1979). For brief discussions on Maine’s land use program. Nevertheless. However. G. Nevada also is part of the bistate planning compact creating the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency in 1969 (Strong 1984). The most detailed account to date of Maine’s 1988 act and subsequent state growth management program modifications is provided by Howitt (1993). the law was subsequently modified to make local planning optional. As a result of passing the Economic Growth. Hawaii does not appear on everyone’s list of growth management states (e. Porter 1996b. and DeGrove (1984) devotes a chapter of his first book to the implementation of state land use regulation in Hawaii. with the publication of two books (1994a. which mandated local planning. Bosselman (1986) describes lessons that Florida can learn from Hawaii’s experience. Massachusetts is not typically included as a growth management state.com by guest on January 31. 2013 .sagepub. neither Rosenbaum (1976) nor Cobb (1998) indicate that it has a local planning mandate. see Adams (1991) and Laitin (1988). perhaps because of the state’s unique island geography and the low probability that its program will be repeated elsewhere. see Cohen and McAbee-Cummings (1998) and Noonan and Moran (1996). Nevada Nevada established a regional planning agency for the Lake Tahoe region in 1968. 1992) and Nelson and Duncan (1995) cite significant regional programs in Martha’s Vineyard and Cape Cod (see also Wickersham 1996). Maine Maine is almost universally accepted as a growth management state. K. Massachusetts This state passed a wetlands protection statute in the 1960s (McDowell 1986. a local comprehensive planning mandate (Rosenbaum 1976. If unconditional local comprehensive planning does exist in conjunction with the significant regional programs for Martha’s Vineyard and Cape Cod. but also see Rand (1992). DeGrove (1992) devotes a chapter to Maine’s land use program. Wickersham 1994. J.g. I. In 1988. Gale 1992. Maryland Maryland passed what appears to be mandatory local comprehensive planning in 1992 after an attempt to pass legislation in 1991 failed (Cohen and McAbeeCummings 1998). One reason why Nevada may be excluded from the list of growth management states is because 86 percent of its land area is publicly owned (Popper 1988). Liberty 1992). and a local zoning mandate (Rosenbaum 1976) in 1973. New Jersey New Jersey’s combination of regional and state planning has earned New Jersey a universally accepted place on the list of growth management states. even though Cobb (1998) finds the state has an unconditional local planning mandate and Bollens (1993. and established the Cape Cod Commission in 1990 (see Cape Cod Commission 1996. Its historic regulation of unorganized territories and other state involvement has qualified Maine as a growth management state. following California’s lead a year earlier. Patton and Patton 1975). Re- Downloaded from jpl.. Maine enacted its Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act.

New Jersey is a leader in state planning and is one of the few states to employ simulations and modeling on a statewide basis (Gottlieb and Reilly 1994.com by guest on January 31. O.) DeGrove (1994) describes Oregon’s influence on other state programs. little has been written about the 1978 law. For a short description of the 1988 law. see Luberoff (1993). required a State Development and Redevelopment Plan. the “planning cousin” of Act 250 (Dean 1996). L. Nelson (1990a). N. Ulasewicz (1986) and Davis (1798) provide short descriptions of land use planning in the Adirondacks. DeGrove (1984) and Myers (1974b) provide detailed accounts of Act 250. however. which includes a land capability map that identifies four categories of land use intensity. Major accounts of Oregon’s program during the 1980s include Leonard’s Managing Oregon’s Growth (1983) and DeGrove’s Land Growth and Politics (1984). The act does not place planning requirements on local government (Epling 1993). and Epling (1993. Liroff and Davis 1981). and it is universally recognized as a growth management state. Neither Rosenbaum (1976) nor Cobb (1998) indicate that Vermont mandates local comprehensive planning. New Jersey’s State Planning Act was passed in 1985 and signed into law in 1986. see Daniels and Lapping (1984). 2013 . It established a State Planning Commission. Leeman (1997) provides an economist’s critique of Oregon’s program. and Gordon (1988) provide brief discussions. yet it also includes a large development review procedure and a local comprehensive planning program. Melloni and Goetz Downloaded from jpl. (See the listing for urban growth boundaries in the Index of Terms and Concepts for a more complete listing. Weitz and Moore (1998). Pelham (1979) 279 devotes attention to Oregon in his book. However. Kasowski (1991). DeGrove (1992). New York’s Adirondack Park Agency Act (1971) probably deserves inclusion as a state growth management program. see Lawrence and Lussenhop (1994). New York considered revisions to its existing land use laws in 1990 (Salkin 1992). Recent work on urban growth management in Oregon includes the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (1998. Porter (1996b) notes that Rhode Island is one of three states (the others are Florida and Oregon) that have more than twenty years of experience administering comprehensive statewide growth management programs. Vermont Vermont makes the list of growth management states because of its well-known large-scale development review process (Act 250 of 1970). Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program (1997). which mandates local comprehensive planning. For chapter-length overviews of Oregon’s program. For citations of literature on this program during the quiet revolution. Kundell and colleagues 1989. 1991). DeGrove 1988).sagepub. its State Land Capability Plan (1973). He also notes that Rhode Island established Land Use 2010 in 1989. Nolon (1996) examines the erosion of home rule in the Adirondack Park and argues against adopting its coercive. An account of the passage of Oregon’s program was published by the Conservation Foundation (Little 1974). In 1988. and the state plan emphasizes incentives more than regulatory provisions (Guskind 1988).CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 nomic recession (Guskind 1988). Rhode Island is found by both Rosenbaum (1976) and Cobb (1998) to mandate local planning. M. see D’Ambrosi (1976). Rhode Island Rhode Island passed a law in 1978 that requires local comprehensive plans and provides for a state monitoring role (Lawlor 1992). The Adirondack program is often called a critical-area program (Beckley 1992. Oregon Along with Florida. For the most detailed account of New Jersey’s state planning program. New York Given the large geographic area covered by the mandate—about 20 percent of the state’s land area—(Ulasewicz 1986) and the breadth and strengths of its requirements. 1993) and Howe (1993).or article-length accounts of New Jersey’s program. New Jersey has been universally accepted as a growth management state even if local comprehensive planning is not unconditionally mandated (Cobb 1998). Knaap and Nelson’s The Regulated Landscape (1992) and Abbott and colleagues’ Planning the Oregon Way (1994) are two books that have been published about Oregon’s statewide land use program in the 1990s. because it only covers a significant subarea of the state. and its growth management law (Act 200 of 1988). and Cogan Owens Cogan (1997). Nelson 1992b. State Land Use Planning and Regulation. Burchell 1993). 1989). For chapter. the state enacted its Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act. New York is often excluded from the list of significant growth management states. Oregon is universally included on the list of growth management states because of its mandate to plan and zone and its state review of plans and regulations to ensure compliance with statewide planning goals. Since 1986. top-down approach. DeGrove (1992) provides a chapter-length description of Rhode Island’s 1988 legislation (see also Varian 1993). see Sullivan (1994. Oregon is one of the most extensively studied growth management states. At least two books have been written about New York’s program in the Adirondacks (Graham 1981. see Lawlor (1992). For an assessment of Act 250. and instituted the now well-known cross-acceptance process for coordinating local plans with state goals.

and DeGrove (1992). This annotated bibliography demonstrates that much variation remains with regard to how many growth management states there are and which states are (or should be) considered growth management states. Also in 1998. For a summary account of regulatory reform. 2013 . are usually included on the list of growth management states.280 Journal of Planning Literature been introduced. Dean (1996) provides a brief perspective of Act 250 after twenty-five years and discusses recent experience with Act 200. work there appears to be unfinished. and Washington make virtually everyone’s list of significant or “comprehensive” growth management programs. Beginning with Hawaii in 1961. Trade. The relatively weak or undefined state role in the process of reviewing local growth management plans might keep Tennessee off the list of growth management states in the near future. 1991). see Washington State Land Use Study Commission (1998). scholars of the 1990s are unanimous in their decision to exclude Wyoming from the list of growth management states. Two other states. Maine.. which includes mandatory local comprehensive planning (DeGrove 1989. This state passed a land use planning act in 1975 (Rosenbaum 1976) and also passed critical-area regulation (DeGrove 1988).com by guest on January 31. state involvement in growth management has evolved through the quiet revolution. and now a fourth (Smart Growth) wave of state activity. Vermont. 1984. Arizona passed mandatory local comprehensive planning legislation and mandatory zoning legislation yet failed to pass critical areas legislation. For an account of Washington State’s unsuccessful effort to adopt state land use planning during the quiet revolution. Arizona passed a smarter growth law that begins the framework for a growth management program (Colton and DiTullio 1999). House Bill 1468 of the General Assembly of North Carolina would address the need in that state for local governments to adopt growth plans. a second wave. Chapter-length accounts of state planning in North Carolina are provided by Burby and May (1997) and DeGrove (1984). Washington is now universally accepted as having a growth management program even if not all counties and cities are required to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans. In 1998. 1993.g. Cobb (1998) finds that Wyoming does not unconditionally mandate local planning. There are some dissenters Downloaded from jpl. Wyoming Rosenbaum (1976) and Moss (1977) find Wyoming’s state role in land use to be significant during the quiet revolution. Florida. For discussions of Washington State’s Growth Management Act (1990. Settle and White (1998) and Lewis (1992) provide short articles. As of the 1990s. DeGrove 1984) as the result of the enactment of its successful Coastal Area Management Act of 1974. The literature is replete with inconsistencies that stem from the lack of a commonly accepted classification scheme and the lack of agreement on criteria for considering whether a state qualifies as a growth management state. even though criteria for their status are not clearly articulated in the literature. Owens 1985). Growth management legislation in North Carolina has recently During its four-decade history. Smith (1993). However. and continuing most recently with Smart Growth legislation in Arizona and Tennessee. Why it is excluded is not clear from the literature. New Jersey. however. Durant et al. Durkan (1996). During the quiet revolution. Washington Washington was one of the earlier states to adopt a shoreline’s management act (1971) that included a comprehensive planning mandate and state agency review and approval of land use plans (Settle 1983. R. Bish 1982). Arizona and Tennessee are the two most recent additions to the universe of growth management states. IV. Pelham (1979) describes Wyoming’s land use program and finds that the state followed Oregon’s model in establishing a State Land Use Commission. see Bagne (1975) and Bosselman and Callies (1971). the Tennessee state legislature passed an annexation law that defied political wisdom and included a mandate that local governments implement urban growth boundaries (American Planning Association 1998b. Maryland. Rhode Island. P. however. Settle and Gavigan (1993). but it is sometimes included in the literature (e. Georgia and Hawaii. many states have adopted significant state growth management programs. when the state passed growth management laws. a third wave. Other States North Carolina is not a growth management state.sagepub. Q. Peirce 1998). Oregon. Pivo (1993) analyzes the local government implementation of the critical-area regulatory mandate of the Growth Management Act. and Wells (1996). in-state observers consider it unlikely to pass. and Economic Development and League of Women Voters of Washington (1997). see Washington State Department of Community. The literature shows that several states are universally accepted as growth management states. It is hoped that the six elements of state growth management programs presented in this introduction will help in future efforts to classify state growth management programs. CONCLUSION (1993) and DeGrove (1992) provide chapter-length overviews of Vermont’s 1988 growth management program.

and the New Jersey Pinelands Commission. This annotated bibliography shows that a local comprehensive planning mandate is not a prerequisite for inclusion on the list of growth management states. V. and New York. or do they coexist? There are other significant gaps in the literature that deserve the attention of scholars. 003. and Sullivan 1994). Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. New York: Thomas Y. but it will stimulate thinking about the need for criteria to determine the inclusion or exclusion of state programs on the list of growth management states. the effect of Oregon’s program on other states (DeGrove 1994). The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area was created in 1986 after approval by lawmakers in Oregon and Washington and adoption by the U. The simple classification of program elements presented here is not expected to end that debate. Part 3 provides perspectives and interpretations of Oregon’s program. 1994. Howe 1994. Oregon’s land use program developed within the context of issues defined in moral terms. Other chapters from the book are abstracted in this bibliography (see Adler 1994. Downloaded from jpl. along with two chapters on rural planning issues.S. these ten states constitute a core group of commonly accepted growth management states. and Margery P. Deborah Howe. Congress as Public Law 99564. or understanding of. the creation of a management plan for the scenic area. Sy Adler. have significant programs that are sporadically included in discussions of state growth management programs and that deserve consideration even though they are not very comprehensive (statewide) programs. the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The author applies Daniel Elazar’s (American federalism: A view from the states. and Sy Adler. Are they one and the same. Carl. Massachusetts.g. Abbott. Nelson 1994. scholars need to devise and use better classification systems. Abbott. the interrelationship between state planning and zoning enabling statutes and state growth management programs. integrated transportation and land use planning. the Willamette River greenway) and participatory processes (e. should be added to the list of growth management states or at least be considered as candidates for inclusion on the list. The Oregon planning style. Debate regarding just how many and which states are growth management states will undoubtedly continue until scholars adopt a classification scheme and use it consistently. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. economic. or have certain state programs gone by the wayside? What about other states such as Nevada. including strong support for environmental protection (e. Beyond these ten states. The book is an edited volume with three parts and thirteen chapters. the number of states on the list would grow substantially. 2013 . Substantive planning issues such as housing. The political. Deborah Howe.g. 1997.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 to the inclusion of Georgia and Hawaii. this is one of the two most detailed accounts of Oregon’s statewide land use program in the 1990s. including the Cape Cod Commission. Crowell. Planning the Oregon way: A twenty-year evaluation. Abbott.. Planning a new West: The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. Together. They also compare the Columbia River Gorge Commission with other regional environmental management entities. Others. Knaap 1994. Abbott develops notions of the public good and bureaucracy. The authors describe the politics of legislative adoption. South Dakota. eds. scholarly consensus eludes us. and regional facilities siting are addressed in part 2. Indeed. Carl Abbott. If a local comprehensive planning mandate is sufficient to qualify a state as a growth management state. and implementation experiences. In Planning the Oregon way: A twenty-year evaluation. Oregon maintained a “moralistic” political structure that emphasized regulation and bureaucracy for the general public good. Carl. They also need to provide more careful qualifications in writing about state growth management programs. He argues that the rational planning idea that the public interest is discoverable exists in Oregon’s program. Oregon’s ethos and planning style accept the “rational bureaucratic state” at something like face value. This literature review indicates that other states. the Adirondack Park Agency. such as Delaware. 1994. the trend now is toward collaborative models that encourage planning with incentives rather than through the coercive reform models popularized during the quiet revolution (Weitz forthcoming). and Kentucky? Do these states deserve consideration? As Daniel Mandelker (1989) implied a decade ago. Afew additional observations about omissions in the literature need to be made. Along with Knaap and Nelson’s (1992) work. 1972) concept of state “political culture” in discussing Oregon’s land use program. to avoid the inconsistent condition into which the state growth management literature itself has evolved. From 1950 to 1970. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 281 001.sagepub. Abbott. Scholars have only recently begun the task of evaluating the successes and failures of state growth management programs. citizen input in developing statewide planning goals). eds. but most of the time their reasons are unknown. Carl.com by guest on January 31. such as California. This book represents the first major account of the bistate regional planning effort to protect the scenic resources of the Columbia River Gorge in Oregon and Washington.. and the need for developing a research agenda (Howe 1994). and Sy Adler. and legal foundations of Oregon’s program are described in part 1. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. including the state’s planning style (Abbott 1994). What has happened to some of the quiet revolution reforms? Have scholars simply ignored some of the programs in certain states.) There appears to be little attention to. Delaware. 002. (It is encouraging that the empirical evaluation literature is now beginning to blossom.

A model land development code. structure. American Planning Association.282 Journal of Planning Literature lution are also based on these model code provisions. 1974. state comprehensive plans. Down easters take on growth management. Chicago: American Planning Association. less than half of the cities and towns had comprehensive plans. eds. 1998a. Chapter 6 of the guidebook addresses regional planning. The state of Maine’s Office of Comprehensive Planning suggests that the best comprehensive plans are those produced with the most citizen input. Chicago: American Planning Association. “State Land Development Regulation. This work provides a rationale for the revision of state planning laws and then offers perspectives and examples for state governments to consider in reforming existing statutes. In reviewing the proposed rule. This report is the result of the second phase of the Growing Smart Program to modernize state land use and comprehensive planning laws and zoning enabling statutes. legal counsel for the Metropolitan Service District (Portland regional government) charged that reconsidering acknowledged land use plans in light of transportation planning was a “radical concept for rulemaking” (p. and Sy Adler. Planning 64. Phase 1 interim edition. The guidebook and philosophy of the Growing Smart Program differ from the American Law Institute’s MLDC (see American Law Institute 1974) in that no single approach is considered to be appropriate for all of the states. 006. Sy. designating areas of critical state concern. In Planning the Oregon way: A twenty-year evaluation. State planning: Its function and organization. The Oregon approach to integrating transportation and land use planning. Tennessee: Legislative coup. Knaap (1998a. and regulating developments of regional impact. Rick. 480/481. 1991. Papers abstracted in this bibliography include those by Cobb (1998). Tennessee’s legislature enacted Senate Bill 3278 that establishes a foundation for growth management. 7 (July): 32-33. therefore.sagepub. Planning 57. Florida’s growth management laws refer to the administering bureau of state growth management as the State Land Planning Agency. One of the criticisms of the Model Code is that it mandates states and localities to regulate land but does not mandate that local governments prepare comprehensive plans prior to implementing land use regulations. Of particular relevance is Article 7. The author describes citizen participation strategies that have been employed in local comprehensive planning efforts. It identifies a need to bring state services and functions into a more unified program. . Growing Smart legislative guidebook: Model statutes for planning and the management of change. 2. economic development. American Institute of Planners Committee on State Planning. and some cities did not even have planning staffs. Publication of the guidebook was preceded by preparation of a fifty-state summary of planning statutes and working papers on the topic (see American Planning Association 1996b). 008. Maine’s law takes a cue from Oregon’s land use law with regard to citizen participation in the planning process. and to solidify a relationship between land use and transportation plans. 1998b) and Weitz (1997b). context. In the tradition of Article 8. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. Philadelphia: American Law Institute.com by guest on January 31.” Two parts of Article 7. American Law Institute. definitions. 004. Chapter 5 on state land use controls includes model legislation for siting state facilities. and tax equity devices and tax relief programs. state land use control. The Model Land Development Code was the single most influential reference in the development of state growth management programs during the quiet revolution. Counties must establish planned growth areas and prepare a growth plan by July 1. Deborah Howe. The proposed transportation planning rule was initially intended to restrict highway projects outside urban growth boundaries. Provisions of the model code are still being implemented today in Florida. regional planning. From the states. and state functional plans for transportation. 2013 . 009. The chapter on state planning describes state agency strategic plans. . 1996a. the purposes and granting of power. and the state developed a State Land Development Plan. The law includes some aspects of materials produced by the American Planning Association’s Growing Smart Program and requires cities to establish urban growth boundaries. Adams. In May of 1998. The author concludes with observations about the rule’s prospects for success. Planning Advisory Service Report no. 005. many of which are devoted to neighborhood planning. Adler. and dynamics of rule making for transportation planning in Oregon. The author traces the origins. and explains various activities of a state planning staff. land development. “Areas of Critical State Concern” and “Development of Regional Impact” are implemented in Florida. This early report documents a new movement to revitalize state government and include planning as one of its functions because of the rapid increase in the need to address resource degradation and metropolitan growth. This edition includes twenty-two working papers. and housing. Other state growth management programs developed during the quiet revo- Downloaded from jpl. 8 (August): 26-28. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 25: 207-14. state planning. The Phase 1 interim edition provides chapters on initiating planning statute reform. to protect state highway investments. 007. Prior to passage of the 1988 law. 1959. Maine’s Growth Management Act of 1988 established ten goals for dealing with growth and required that each of the state’s cities and towns prepare a new comprehensive plan. 2001. Modernizing state planning statutes: The Growing Smart working papers. highlights some of the alternative organizational approaches. 137-38). there are many alternatives for states to consider in the Growing Smart guidebook. 010. Early drafts of the rule provided for less reliance on the automobile in metropolitan areas through a reduction in vehicle miles traveled. Carl Abbott. Vol. 1994. 1998b.

The law resulted from recommendations made by the Georgia Future Communities Commission and is the product of a consensus-based approach among stakeholders. Morris (1996). Association of County Commissioners of Georgia. and Dallas D. that compact urban development form results in economic and fiscal benefits. and Stroud (1996).g. DeGrove (1996). Washington. Journal of Planning Education and Research 12. 1990. contains articles on a variety of topics in the planning profession that include state land use planning and regulation. Chicago: American Planning Association. 013. 329). Brower. Richard L.com by guest on January 31. The author tells the story of the efforts of the Washington State Land Planning Commission. The authors find that there is too little empirical evidence to substantiate the assumption. but then departed from. Baer provides his own “first cut” of plan criteria. 015. including regional planning and state agency functions (see also Meck 1996 in this bibliography). 1975. Randall W. . Georgia Department of Community Affairs. Leftist critique of the quiet revolution in land use control: Two cases of agency formation. Several of the working papers are abstracted here (see Bohlen et al. Porter (1996a). Audirac. Stroud and O’Connel 1986). 2013 . which was created in 1971. inherent in Florida’s emerging urban development policy. Thomas M. problems. 462/463. . autonomy and choice) influence the process of choosing the roles of government in land use planning. DC: Urban Land Institute. Planning Advisory Service Report no. zoning and related statutes. The best of Planning: Two decades of articles from the magazine of the American Planning Association. 1: 55-66. Guskind 1988. Barrows emphasizes the political system and how its characteristics (e. Georgia Municipal Association. “Positive criteria should be available that specify what plans should have to meet professionally approved standards of practice analogous to the accounting profession’s “generally accepted accounting standards” (p. Planning. Ivonne. 1992. This Planning Advisory Service Report contains twentysix working papers and two appendixes that are intended to guide the Growing Smart Program in its effort to establish a model for updating state planning laws. eds. “State mandates are exhaustively—even mind-numbingly—‘rational’ in their detailed requirements for technical competence” (p. The law requires that counties and cities adopt a service delivery strategy by mid-1999. State land use: Writing a downto-earth bill. the Service Delivery Strategy Act passed by the Georgia General Assembly in 1997. and contentions that sprawl is costly remain controversial and unresolved. 1996. American Society of Planning Officials. The author investigates the proper roles for federal. In Management and control of growth: Issues. The roles of federal. This report recommends reforms to Connecticut’s state planning and zoning statutes. Journal of the American Planning Association 56. either statewide or aimed at particular subareas” (p. techniques. Washington. Several articles are annotated in this bibliography (see DeGrove 1983. This work may have been written in an effort to neutralize state findings that compact development patterns are efficient (see James Duncan and Associates et al. Bagne cites major portions of the bill and identifies deficiencies. Journal of the American Planning Association 63. 012. This publication provides an overview of House Bill 489. thus necessitating state and federal involvement in land use. and Marc T. 330). and local governments in land use planning. 1982. Meck (1996). 1989 in this bibliography). New directions in Connecticut planning legislation: A study of Connecticut planning. Anne H. 1996b. Callies (1994b). Modernizing state planning statutes: The Growing Smart working papers. The bill (House Bill 791) was introduced to the legislature in 1973 and initially relied on. Downloaded from jpl. 1966. 3: 329-44. 1. state and local governments in land use planning.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 011. and Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia. Rohse (1996). Shermyen. the American Planning Association’s monthly publication. Lincoln (1996). Bagne. General plan evaluation criteria: An approach to making better plans. 1989. then suggests lessons for other states to consider in developing new land use legislation. Baer. 337). McCahill 1974. Nolon (1996). Appendix A contains the full text of the law. 017. The author finds that “at least fourteen states now have comprehensive growth programs. the Model Land Development Code.sagepub. DC: National Planning Conference. state. trends.. Chicago: American Planning Association. Conrad N. Smith. Miner. 1997. 019. 283 They suggest that the state policy of concentrated development runs counter to many people’s preference for low densities. 4: 470-82. 018. This compilation of some of the “best” articles from 1969 to 1989 includes works on state growth management programs in the section on land use and the environment. William C. A draft bill was developed and approved by the commission for distribution throughout the state. Vol. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Community Affairs. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials. Einsweiler 1987. Vol. Charting a course for cooperation and collaboration: An introduction to the Service Delivery Strategy Act for local governments. This work begins with a statement by the National Planning Association’s Joint Committee on Long Range Land Use Planning. Ideal urban form and visions of the good life: Florida’s growth management dilemma. Barrows. 1997. One chapter describes agricultural land preservation and provides an example from Wisconsin. The bill failed to pass. 3. He contends that local governments have had no incentive to solve problems outside their own local jurisdictions. David J. He argues that criteria are needed to evaluate state mandates for local plan preparation. 016. Scott. Beckley. 014.

and the design of the mandate itself can be important in determining plan quality. Plans in states with planning mandates (California. and Stuart Meck. Bish. State planning mandates induce widespread local response to natural hazards. Full partnership is the “most appealing long-term option” (p. In Modernizing state planning statutes: The growing smart working papers. The two cases provide little support for the hard version of the leftist critique. Under full partnership. They find that under state mandates. (2) collaborative partnerships (Georgia. Virginia. The authors find that state planning is more successful when it is located closer to the state’s chief decisionmakers. Sarah. Texas. 1: 76-87. It also The author discusses the debate over liberal quiet revolution reforms in land use control and investigates two cases of quiet revolution reform dealing with critical-areas protection. The authors examine the influence of state mandates on the content and quality of comprehensive plans from 139 local governments in five states. 1998. He provides brief descriptions of the two case study programs: (1) the substate. There is little evaluation to accompany the debate about the what. The authors suggest that communities operating under state planning mandates have much stronger plans for reducing the effects of natural hazards. 023. communities complete plans that they would not have otherwise prepared. and South Carolina). 020. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35. consisting of two variants. However. (3) limited regulatory partnership. Philip R. 1: 79-96.. This working paper describes the roles of special independent study commissions in Massachusetts. 5: 334-39. Florida. Getting started: Initiating the process of state planning law reform. 57). and tribal government roles in separate chapters. Roenigk. Florida. and Deil S. the state mandate substitutes for the absence of positive political forces and overcomes local obstacles to planning. Berke. and (4) the mobilization approach. North Carolina. Reducing natural hazards risks through state growth management. Beyle. and North Carolina’s mountain region). Bohlen. New York’s Adirondack Park Agency and Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission. Robert L. New Jersey. did not actively advocate for centralization of land use control. and policies. Four types of “shared governance” are described: (1) regulatory full partnership. They conclude that state mandates have a clearly measurable effect in enhancing plan quality. Philip R. Some of the state mandates result in higher quality plans because of the form of the mandate and the level of state implementation. and Steven P. local governments in states with planning mandates are more likely than communities without planning mandates to adopt and implement strong riskreduction programs. and Raymond Burby. and (2) regulation of Maine’s “unorganized territories” by the Land Use Regulation Commission (p. and Vermont). New directions in state planning. The forest products’ industry. Journal of the American Planning Association 64. 1. 022. The author suggests that a mix of regulatory and incentive policies be used to entice local involvement in meeting state mandates. but its success depends on using the other types of shared governance. The influence of state planning mandates on local plan quality. development. Massachusetts. and Georgia. Another thirteen were located in departments of commerce. The author inventories and evaluates the governance system in the Puget Sound region of Washington State and how decisions affect the uses of Puget Sound’s resources. 025. 246). Wright. Kaiser. This article examines data on all fifty state governments and their state planning activities. Planning Advisory Service Report no. There is little empirical evidence of the effects of statemandated local planning. how. 1994. This article uses empirical data from the natural-hazard elements of 139 local comprehensive plans in five states (California. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 021. 59). and North Carolina’s coastal region) are compared with plans in states without planning mandates (Texas.284 Journal of Planning Literature the strength of local plans across all dimensions” (p. Berke. 462/463. 1982. The author suggests that there is a need to pursue a combination of the four types of sharedgovernance approaches. He describes the federal. local. in which states withhold public facility funding to discourage inappropriate development (North Carolina. 2013 . state. Thad L. that centralized planning and regulation frequently serve the interests of large-scale production (industrial) capital” (p.. In 1969. extralocal Adirondack Park Agency rules. The author then describes quiet revolution politics in New York and Maine and interest group power in the political process. The authors describe state mandate measures in an appendix to the article.sagepub. but local implementation varies considerably. Vol. in varying degrees. 4: 237-50. 1996. simply adopting a state planning mandate does not guarantee high local plan quality scores across states. Edward J. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 39. French. 1996. Enhancing plan quality: Evaluating the role of state planning mandates for natural hazard mitigation. Chicago: American Planning Association. Dale J. 1969. The author draws conclusions from the review of state experiences with natural hazards. goals. Maryland. They study three aspects of hazard mitigation elements in local plans: fact basis.com by guest on January 31. representing large-scale productive capital. Mary Beth McGuire. Sureva Seligson. Philip R. Governing Puget Sound. The authors find that “state level mandates are strongly associated with Downloaded from jpl. 85). and where of state planning. Berke. and Washington) to determine whether state mandates actually result in better plans. The author finds that “leftist critics suggest. State involvement in local planning has gained momentum. 024. Washington during the study period.. Rhode Island. or planning and development. Michigan. Journal of Planning Education and Research 13. twenty of the fifty state planning agencies were located within the governor’s office. 56) and that “leftists suggest that the shift of the locus of land use regulation must be explained by shifting needs of capital” (p.

1971. Fred P. 9). State and local plans in Hawaii: Lessons for Florida. 462). they conclude that the bottom-up. The author analyzes citizen responses to successful 1988 growth management referenda on Cape Cod. The state combines a land use classification system. Georgia. Vermont (1970 and 1988). 1990. The choices were whether to impose a one-year 285 moratorium on new development and whether to create a regional land use regulatory commission.com by guest on January 31. Hawaii (1961 and 1978). Florida. The author categorizes each program in terms of “preemptive/regulatory. and Kansas). The author also lists the names of individual statutes by state. Massachusetts.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 describes special study commissions composed of state legislators in New York. New York. there are four different maps that determine land use in Hawaii. which is guided by state planning dictates. 1986. Based on an example of grassroots growth regionalism and county reform in Cape Cod. Oregon. a “development plan” adopted by the state legislature. 031. He provides survey questions in an appendix to the article. The quiet revolution in land use control. and New Jersey’s negotiated process (1985). Pennsylvania. and general plans and zoning ordinances from the four local governments (counties) in the state.sagepub. He concludes that in general. and Washington.. 1: 46-67. Maine. New Jersey (1979 and 1985). Vermont. Oregon (1973). Bosselman. Counties and land-use regionalism: Models of governance. the Adirondacks in New York. DeGrove and Julian C. Bosselman. and Michigan and reforms initiated by state chapters of the American Planning Association (West Virginia. with that of Hawaii. 030. He concludes with opinions regarding the paths Florida should take. The author finds that state growth management is “still in its adolescence” (p. Maryland. however. Fred P. Journal of Planning Literature 7. which has no state land use classification system. states are moving away from preemptive interventions toward more collaborative planning models. and Washington (1990)” (p. Urban Affairs Quarterly 26. Rhode Island (1988). State growth management: Intergovernmental frameworks and policy objectives. The authors describe “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches by states to regional growth management as subordinated county (state-mandated) and empowered county (voluntary) models. . Caves. Washington. 1992.” and “cooperative/planning” structures.” “conjoint/planning. Bollens describes the national context of intergovernmental relations and how state growth management has emerged from the quiet revolution to the second wave. The author suggests that the state plan has evolved into a document that has no particular legal significance but that may have some influence in state agency decision making. Cambridge. beginning with the effort to prepare a state plan in 1975 (adopted in 1978). 1993. Florida’s Developments of Regional Impact Program (1972) and concurrency requirements (1985). The author surveys the literature on land use governance reform with an emphasis on intergovernmental growth strategies. Hawaii. Regionalism was successful in a local home rule environment because of perceived inadequacies of existing town regulations. Massachusetts (1989). State agency functional plans were submitted and adopted during a seven-year period following adoption of the state plan. MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Massachusetts. His list of thirteen states is broader than Gale’s (1992) structural analysis in that it includes less areally comprehensive programs such as Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts. and general conclusions about the reform process are provided. 211). 027. DC: Council on Environmental Quality and Council of State Governments. The author notes. eds. New York (1971). State interventions in growth management have “followed divergent policy paths and not shown uniformity in their intergovernmental structures or program objectives” (p. International Journal of Public Administration 17. Other approaches are also briefly described. Oregon’s 1973 land use act. Regionalism was given more support than the idea of imposing a moratorium on growth. the Pinelands in New Jersey. and the Chesapeake Bay critical area in Maryland. Bollens. “In Hawaii both state and local government have done far more planning for future land use than in almost any other state” (p. 026. coastal planning and the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact in California. Journal of the American Planning Association 58. 3: 211-26. 028. Maryland (1984 and 1992). and Roger W. Callies. Restructuring land use governance. Constituencies for limitation and regionalism: Approaches to growth management. 1994. Bollens describes and compares the intergovernmental structures of state growth management programs in California. Juergensmeyer. that dissatisfaction with local government capacity does not necessarily lead to support for regionalism. Bollens highlights some of the thirteen programs: Vermont’s Environmental Control Act (Act 250 of 1970). Bollens. consensus-based approach appears to possess greater potential for empowering and modernizing county government than the top-down model. Hence. Scott A. Georgia (1989). 2013 . Bollens notes that thirteen states have since 1970 “independently established comprehensive (multifunctional) planning legislation applicable to all their localities or to specific subareas—California (1972 and 1976). respectively. 4: 454-66. 221). Scott A. Maine (1988). John M. Rhode Island. They argue that an inability of municipal governments to adequately deal with regional growth issues is throwing the spotlight on counties to play a role in a restructured growth governance. This book is probably the most often cited and influential work on state land use controls from the 1960s and early Downloaded from jpl. Florida (1972 and 1985). Arkansas. In Perspectives on Florida’s Growth Management Act of 1985. . 029. and David L. The authors illustrate the prospects for counties undertaking the role of regional government empowered to manage multi-jurisdictional growth conflicts. 5: 851-80.. Massachusetts. New Jersey. Bosselman provides a history of Hawaii’s state planning experience. He then contrasts Florida’s situation.

These states include Florida. Raymond J.. Plans can matter! The role of land use plans and state planning mandates in limiting development of hazardous areas. specifically addresses state growth management programs. 1991. Washington’s Land Planning Commission. Colorado’s Land Use Act. yet this book is an important general work on the status of growth management at the end of the 1980s. 033. Is state-mandated planning effective? Land Use Law and Zoning Digest 45. Steven P. Peter A. South Dakota. Berke. The authors also discuss key issues in state land use regulation and summarize other innovative programs. They also identify states that require local governments to prepare comprehensive plans but that have not enacted comprehensive growth management legislation (Alaska. Making governments plan: State experiments in managing land use. Brumback. the Maine Site Location Law. and Dale Roenigk. It is a collaborative effort of several scholars who seek to determine whether state growth management programs and local comprehensive plans are effective. Linda C. including the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. This article is an early synthesis of separate papers by a team of scholars interested in determining the effectiveness of state mandates for natural-hazards reduction. and Virginia). Vermont’s Environmental Control Law. 3: 229-38. the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission. Nevada. New Jersey.286 Journal of Planning Literature the work with predictions about the next wave of state and regional growth management. the Wisconsin Shorelands Protection Program. The authors find that “eighteen states now mandate local comprehensive plans and. DeGrove. the Adirondack Park Agency. 1: 8-10. They seek to determine whether local land use plans actually lead to local restrictions on the development of hazardous areas and whether state mandates are effective. May. the Massachusetts Zoning Appeals Law. 1997. Chapters by DeGrove (1993 in this bibliography) and Burchell (1993 in this bibliography) introduce the work. Raymond J.. Philip Berke. Buchsbaum. the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council. Godschalk. This edited volume examines critical issues in growth management and provides a research agenda for coordinated growth management. Oregon. Arizona. Hawaii (Callies 1993 in this bibliography). and Larry J. including improving quality of development and reducing infrastructure costs. Baltimore. Porter. Understanding growth management: Critical issues and a research agenda. Indiana. Idaho. The authors argue that local governments are not likely to adopt land use plans without state or federal mandates. and California (Stone and Seymour 1993 in this bibliography). Environmental and Urban Issues 19. The authors provide a table showing the consistency requirements of eleven states. An appendix includes the authors’ debate about state plan assessments. The author finds that growth management has become widely accepted as involving a commitment to plan for the effects of growth. 1989. Local governments credit their growth management practices with several accomplishments. Counties tend to rank concerns with environmental topics as very important more often than cities. and Washington. Without state mandates that require plans and regulations to reduce development in hazard areas. the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Program. Raymond J. State and regional comprehensive planning: Implementing new methods for growth management. Vermont (Melloni and Goetz 1993 in this bibliography). The authors use a 1970s. 036. 3). 8). Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act. Local growth management: Purpose. May. Barbara C. 230). Peter J. A plurality of local governments has “accepted the notion of channeling growth” (p. None of the chapters.. California. Dalton. Public Administration Review 54. Massachusetts. in some cases. Steven P. 1994. Smith. and Peter J. and Edward J. 035. 2013 . DC: Urban Land Institute. Florida (Pelham 1993 in this bibliography). issues and accomplishments. Patricia Salkin (1993 in this bibliography) concludes Downloaded from jpl. also require hazards elements of those plans” (p. Brower. MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.. and Linda C. Linda C. Colorado. French. “Ten states have adopted statewide comprehensive growth management programs that either require or strongly encourage local governments to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans” (p. Specifically. and New England’s River Basin Commission. Individual states discussed in the book’s chapters include Oregon (Sullivan 1993 in this bibliography). eds.sagepub. Hawaii. 10: 3-9. 032. the authors find that state planning mandates make positive differences in the character and quality of local plans and the management of development. This edited volume is an important addition to the state growth management literature of the 1990s. 1993. David J. The authors use data on local government planning and land use management from five states to show that state mandates are effective. 037. The authors analyze data on land use plans from 176 local governments in five states. Maryland. Kaiser. New Jersey. Burby. Rhode Island. Dalton. It provides chapters on the following programs: Hawaii’s Land Use Law. Burby. Kaiser. local governments will ignore opportunities for risk reduction through planning and regulation.. Washington (Smith 1993 in this bibliography). 034. French. and Alaska’s joint state-federal Natural Resources and Land Use Planning Commission. Kentucky. John M. Edward J. This article describes the results of a survey in which local government officials in Florida were asked to identify the single most important purpose of growth management in their jurisdiction. 1993. Burby. Chicago: American Bar Association. Multivariate analysis confirms that state mandates have a strong effect on the recommendations of land use plans. Maine. Vermont. Washington. David R. except the chapter by DeGrove (see DeGrove 1989 in this bibliography). with Philip R. Delaware. Georgia. and Douglas R. eds.com by guest on January 31. the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Dalton. This pathbreaking and pioneering work is the first systematic empirical evaluation of state mandates.

and protection by agreement. 144) and comprehensive planning mandates are “by no means essential tools” (p. conservation lands. oversight. Hawaii’s land use planning system may be the most sophisticated in the world. Raymond J. The Urban Lawyer 26: 197-213. 042. 3: 324-34. Preserving paradise: Why regulation won’t work. along with several others. due process permissions. 1994. Chicago: American Bar Association. Burby. eds. and in Modernizing state planning statutes: The Growing Smart working papers. 1994b. 038. Improving compliance with regulations: Choices and outcomes for local government. but “the effects of state mandates are modest at best” (p. facilitative compliance (i. delay and due process in a multipermit state. He concludes with alternatives to regulation: the purchase of open space and coastal resources (e. actors and analyses in statewide comprehensive planning. Seventeen of twenty states located on the West and East Coasts of the United States have or are considering adopting some kind of growth management strategy. Open space is preserved by the 1961 Land Use Law via an agriculture classification that also includes open space and a conservation district. 1993.com by guest on January 31. Vol. Callies. which Downloaded from jpl. The author. 041. North Carolina. This article addresses the topic of achieving local government compliance with rules promulgated by planning agencies. 1996. and the use of private land use controls. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. The author identifies and categorizes state planning issues. and grants can be used to induce localities to develop more agency capacity to enforce and to take stronger enforcement efforts” (p.e.sagepub. The author introduces Act 187 (Hawaii’s Land Use Law passed in 1961) and Act 100 (Hawaii’s State Plan adopted in 1978). Smith. They examine the implications of choices between enforced and voluntary compliance that administrators make in designing enforcement programs.g. 2013 . Hawaii (the Land Use Law of 1961 and the State Plan of 1978). 4: 1-14. The authors describe the conventional view of enforcing compliance versus the “systematic” philosophy of enforcement that relies on voluntary. water). Peter A. The authors suggest that planners would do well to reconsider the conventional wisdom of enforcement. and regulating for environmental protection (coastal. Virtually every one of these programs is based on a state plan or state goals. The quiet revolution revisited: A quarter century of progress. air. He then provides a description of the state plan. land capacity. Journal of the American Planning Association 64. 1998. including plans that address agriculture. There has been a widespread turn by the states toward statewide comprehensive planning.. Robert W. Peter J. and Washington (the Growth Management Acts of 1990 and 1991). A short description of “using the models to assess statewide comprehensive planning effects” in New Jersey follows Burchell’s chapter (p. Resource Protection and Planning Act of 1992). Paterson. 1. and Florida) with local plans and regulations in states without such mandates (Texas and Washington). and Robert C. The state and county permitting process in Hawaii averages eight to ten years. revisits state growth management programs and finds major advances of the quiet revolution in ten states: Florida (the Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 and the Growth Management Act of 1985). preserving open space and the built environment. Georgia (the Georgia Planning Act of 1989). The state contains no cities and only four counties. In State and regional comprehensive planning: Implementing new methods for growth management. 040. Burchell then describes the uses of simulation models in state planning that include econometric. 1984. This book about land use in Hawaii contains chapters on regulatory takings. David L. Maine (the Site Location Law and the Comprehensive Planning and Land Management Act of 1988). The authors conclude that state mandates do make a difference. Chicago: American Bar Association. Peter A. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. the transfer of development rights. among others. Oregon (Senate Bill 100). 1994a. The purpose of the book. May. the creation of a public trust for coastal conservation. Reprinted in Environmental and Urban Issues 21. among other issues. 329).. The author provides a description of the evolution of land use controls in Hawaii. 145). Buchsbaum and Larry J. 039.. Nature Conservancy). Chicago: American Planning Association. a co-author of The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control (see Bosselman and Callies 1971 in this bibliography). eds. 332). 39). 1993. including environment.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 quasi-experimental research design to test whether state comprehensive planning mandates have an effect on the management of local development. 7). quality of life. Land-use planning in the fiftieth state. New Jersey (the State Planning Act). Callies provides hypothetical and actual legal cases to demonstrate the issues and complexity surrounding Hawaii’s land use permit process. Regulating paradise: Land use controls in Hawaii. . . Vermont (Act 250 of 1970 and Act 200 of 1988). . and water resources development. “A key finding is the positive influence of a facilitative enforcement philosophy on contractor commitment to comply” (p. 287 “Hawaii regulates the use of land more tightly than any state in the nation” (p. They compare comprehensive plans and development regulations in three states with comprehensive planning mandates (California. In State and regional comprehensive planning: Implementing new methods for growth management. The State Plan and twelve state functional plans act as guidelines for state land use regulatory agencies. and fiscal impact models. deterrence). Maryland (the Economic Growth. It appears that a mix of efforts that improve agency capacity and stimulate voluntary compliance is appropriate. Burchell. exactions and development conditions. and local home rule. Buchsbaum and Larry J. wetlands. Smith. Planning Advisory Service Report no. Issues. 043. “State mandates. Twelve state functional plans exist. Rhode Island (the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act of 1988). 462/463.

Part 2 describes evolving land policy in South Florida. Oregon. housing and transportation). Cobb indicates that “fifteen states make planning a mandate. clean air and water. Cobb. 480/481. 1: 43-52. The author finds that the quiet revolution has taken some unpredictable turns since 1971 when The Quiet Revolution was published. Callies concludes by asking. “[W]which states have legislation that mandates local land-use planning?” (p. Act 187 is Hawaii’s Land Use Law. Local government strategies with regard to transportation had not changed much in the six years after Florida’s growth management act was passed. Delaware. the State Plan. This article is part of a symposium on law and planning in the environmental decade. and its compatibility with districts of critical planning concern. its consistency with local and regional plan policies. Baltimore. and public lands. Growth management and transportation: The Florida experience. which was passed in 1985. Chicago: American Planning Association. local and federal laws that regulate the use of land in Hawaii” (p. Transportation issues have been at the forefront of local government efforts to implement Florida’s growth management law. MA: Cape Cod Commission.. Part 1 of this book describes land and growth issues in Florida. Later chapters primarily focus on environmental issues such as coastal zone management. Luther J. He discusses emerging issues in 1991 and beyond. This resurgence has spawned exponential increases in citizen participation. 3). James. The Cape Cod Commission is a regional land use planning and regulatory agency created in 1990 by an act of the Massachusetts General Court. flood hazards. Cobb provides thirteen reasons why state planning enabling legislation should be updated. The book’s first three chapters describe Acts 187 and 100 and local planning. Rhode Island. The quiet revolution revisited. 045. Working paper: Goal 14 analysis. 1991. 1997.g. In reviewing applications. meaning that local governments must plan and there are no conditions attached to the mandate. Carter. Cobb also finds that nineteen states have statutes that were influenced by the Model Land Development Code. the political will to enact laws that give states strong authority is often missing. 51) and that the concurrency management system breaks down in the absence of clear financial responsibilities for highway construction.com by guest on January 31.288 Journal of Planning Literature 047. 1998. The author describes Florida’s population and transportation trends. Florida. and Washington. then summarizes early growth management legislation. It describes seven factors of goal 14 and other facets of the state’s land use laws and ad- contains thirteen chapters. focusing on Hawaii. Many states still have planning and zoning laws that are based on a 1920s’ model. Vol. MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. The American Planning Association conducted a survey in early 1997 of the best or most updated state legislation governing local planning in each of the fifty states. Charlier. Act 100.. Evidence now exists (see Burby and May 1997 in this bibliography) that mandatory planning leads to better quality plans and land use management. The commission reviews projects by mandatory referral. Barnstable. Carolina Planning 17. 049. which was passed in 1961. The brochure answers frequently asked questions about the development of regional impact. The fifteen states with planning mandates are Alaska. 2. There has been a resurgence. One of the questions the survey sought to answer was. 2013 . Salem: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. A guide to the development of regional impact review process. 1974. 2: 135-44. The commission has review powers over a variety of projects that present regional issues. 1996. South Dakota. This work was funded by Oregon’s Transportation and Growth Management Program in an effort to document current understanding of the state’s urbanization goal. 135). Georgia. An epilogue describes the implementation of Florida’s Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972. Extensive federal involvement in land use controls (e. California. Toward model statutes: A survey of state laws on local land use planning. by discretionary referral. Planning Advisory Service Report no.g. The author also discusses the taking issue and cites a number of important state court cases relative to local comprehensive planning and growth management. and outlines elements of the concurrency doctrine. Cogan Owens Cogan. The author concludes that “little enhancement of quality of life results from roadway capacity improvements” (p. Nebraska. The author describes efforts to save the Big Cypress Swamp. zoning. or by required review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. The Florida experience: Land and water policy in a growth state. In Modernizing state planning statutes: The Growing Smart working papers. of local government planning and influence in land use decisions. Idaho. Nevada. Oregon has not promulgated rules for urbanization (goal 14). which was “both the inspiration and prototype for the quiet revolution” (p. national and state environmental policy acts. Journal of the American Planning Association 46. 048. Unlike many of the other statewide planning goals (e. The author looks back on a decade of progress since the quiet revolution was first chronicled (see Bosselman and Callies 1971). Cape Cod Commission. 046. and the remaining ten states make planning optional. Downloaded from jpl. is to “survey the range of state. “Is land use a right or a privilege?” 044. Rodney L. the Clean Air Act) was not envisioned by Bosselman and Callies (1971).” whereas twenty-five states make planning conditionally mandatory. Part 4 describes policy for directing growth and the roles of regional planning councils. as identified in the act. 21).sagepub. Kentucky. Massachusetts. 1980. in Hawaii and elsewhere. and the state’s vision of planned transportation systems had yet to be realized. However. the commission considers how a project benefits Cape Cod. . was passed in 1978. and subdivision regulation. Hawaii.

1998. The authors describe why the Citizens Growth Management Act did not reach the ballot. objectives. Planning 65. endangered resources. Newbury Park. James R. which makes the application of goal 14 conversion factors difficult. They seek to determine if Florida’s Growth Management Act stimulates good local housing plans. Frank Schnidman.” and “local plans must be brought into compliance with the new statute by the end of 2001” (p. The paper concludes with a summary of significant gaps and ambiguities inherent in Oregon’s urbanization policies. A bill that nearly passed in 1967 would have abolished the Land Use Commission. The authors conclude with a discussion of planning issues that remain unresolved. These include the Alternatives for Washington Program. the state legislature passed Growing Smarter legislation that was signed by the governor in June 1998. and there is a current lack of clear definitions of urban and urbanizable. and Gavan Davis. A synopsis of the Maryland Critical Area Act of 1984 is appended to the paper. DC: Urban Land Institute. including unregulated “wildcat” subdivisions. including providing a definition of concentrated growth. Jay M. The Land Use Commission established permanent land use districts in 1964 and engaged in a five-year review of district boundaries in 1969. They also provide policy recommendations for more meaningful housing plans. 2 (February): 4-8. It did not reach the ballot. The authors highlight problems with the planning act and provide recommendations for improvement. and threatened quality of life. Citizens for Growth Management. and Maine. An analysis of local government response to the Maryland Economic Growth. a comprehensive development plan adopted by Downloaded from jpl. and Nancy A. California. In Management and control of growth. mounted an unsuccessful initiative known as the Citizens Growth Management Act to mandate urban growth boundaries. In Growth management: The planning challenge of the 1990s. Evaluating housing elements in growth management comprehensive plans. Arizona gets religion. “Now land-use plans must be adopted or re- 289 adopted every ten years. 1978. Cohen. Resource Protection and Planning Act of 1992 requires that all local government comprehensive plans be consistent with those visions by January 1997. Local plans must include sensitive-area elements. Muller. 1993. The authors review planning for housing in selected states. 4. the authors summarize how five diverse Maryland counties have responded to the act’s planning requirements. 1999. Resource Protection and Planning Act of 1992. They establish technical criteria and then report how well the criteria are reported in affordable housing plans of ten local governments in Florida. 1965. It was not until 1975 that the state’s Land Use Law was overhauled. the initiative would have required all counties and cities with a population of more than 2. and Rufus C. CA: Sage. 054. November 4-8. 052.) Growing Smarter evolved from principles of the state’s open-space efforts. recession and inflation. Outerisland Democrats introduced bills in 1963. eds. 053. including New Jersey. and policies.. Techniques in application. The Economic Growth. Arlan M.. and local governments must streamline development approval processes and make local regulations consistent with the visions. and the extent to which counties have documented whether new development is consistent with the vision for concentrated development. and John D. and federal agencies. (The commission’s report is due September 1999. Stein. but few states have articulated growth policies. what sensitive-area protection measures are undertaken.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 ministrative rules. In November 1998. Vermont.sagepub. Council of State Governments. and constructing a system for monitoring compliance with the law’s consistency requirements. The study investigates how the visions are incorporated into county plans. Charles E. Jane A Silverman. Colton. yet states have jurisdiction over the uses of land and local governments are creatures of the state. 1998. Oregon. After providing an overview of the 1992 act. and 1967 to repeal the Land Use Commission or cut back its powers. state. 2013 . It also briefly discusses several state efforts as of 1975. Only limited guidance regarding urban form is provided by current state directives. DiTullio. The Citizens Growth Management Act is expected to be back in some form in the year 2000. Young Jr. All states have growth-related policies and programs to some degree. 7). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. The dominant issues in state growth management. ed. an organization led by the Sierra Club. This article examines numerous state issues such as the energy crisis. Among other things. This work is the first full-length study of land use politics in Hawaii in the democratic years from the mid-1950s to the mid-1980s. Washington.com by guest on January 31. 1964. Vol. Arizona voters approved expenditure of the state’s general funds for open-space preservation. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. After citing specific problems such as the failure to consider regional or statewide housing conditions. establishing baseline data for sensitive areas. Local comprehensive plans must contain an element that identifies growth areas and concentrates public infrastructure dollars on these areas. Cooper. 051. If it had been approved. Responsibility for managing growth is scattered among local. a growth policies resolution adopted by Hawaii’s state legislature in 1975.. Pasadena. California. 1990. and Amy McAbee-Cummings. Maryland passed a land use planning bill in 1992 based on “visions” prepared in 1988 by the Chesapeake Bay 2020 Commission. Chapter 3 describes the politics of the state Land Use Commission. the authors conclude that only two of ten housing plans demonstrated strong links between analysis and goals. Land and power in Hawaii: The democratic years. Connerly. George. The legislation reformed the state’s planning and zoning laws and appointed a Growing Smarter Commission to recommend additional legislation. Florida.500 people to adopt a growth management plan. focusing on urban growth boundary (UGB) amendment issues and the management of land inside UGBs. 050.

290

Journal of Planning Literature
The authors also explain why there have been major increases in the number of hobby farms in the Willamette Valley and throughout Oregon. They note that rather than relying on a single technique, Oregon’s program “embraces a unique package of techniques” (p. 31) for farmland protection. 058. Davidson, Jonathan M. 1991. Growth management: Integrating planning, regulation, and infrastructure controls. In The Law of Planning and Zoning. Vol. 4, Arden H. Rathkopf and Daren A Rathkopf, with Edward H. Ziegler Jr. St Paul, MN: West. The author addresses several aspects of growth management law. The chapter includes a section on comprehensive state programs that discusses, among other programs, Florida’s state plan and administrative rule for local planning, Maine and Rhode Island’s state requirements for local planning, Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, New Jersey’s State Development and Redevelopment Plan, and Georgia’s Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures. The author also briefly discusses statewide land use regulation (i.e., Hawaii’s program); “development threshold programs” in Florida, Maine, and Vermont; and selected critical areas programs (Florida, New Jersey’s Pinelands Commission, New York’s Adirondack Park Agency, and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency). The chapter includes a section on adapting land development regulations to growth management and a section on managing public infrastructure (e.g., capital improvement programming and adequate public-facilities ordinances). 059. Davis, G. Gordon. 1978. Land use control and environmental protection in the Adirondacks. In Management and control of growth. Vol. 4, Techniques in application, Frank Schnidman, Jane A Silverman, and Rufus C. Young Jr., eds. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute. The author, who had served as counsel to the Adirondack Park Agency, describes various elements of the land use and environmental regulatory system in the Adirondacks region of upstate New York. These elements include recommendations from the Temporary Study Commission on the Future of the Adirondacks (1968), enactment of the Adirondack Park Agency Act in 1971, the land classification and Private Land Use and Development Plan, the regional project permit system, and local land use regulations. Land use authority within the park’s borders is shared between the Adirondack Park Agency and local governments. 060. Dean, Howard. 1996. Growth management plans. In Land use in America, Henry L. Diamond and Patrick F. Noonan, eds. Washington, DC: Island. The author, who is the governor of the state of Vermont, shares personal concerns about sprawl in other states and challenges readers to place greater value in good land use planning. He provides perspective on Vermont’s Act 250 and “its planning cousin,” Act 200. The author describes why land use planning does not drag down economic growth and highlights some of the benefits of Act 250 after

South Dakota’s State Planning Commission, a growth policies draft in Colorado, a draft land use policies paper distributed by the State of Idaho, a statewide growth policy proposal released by the Massachusetts Office of State Planning, Vermont’s Capability and Development Plan of 1973, and statewide planning goals adopted in Oregon in1974. 055. D’Ambrosi, Joan. 1976. State land use planning: A selected annotated bibliography. Council of Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography no. 1191. Monticello, IL: Council of Planning Librarians. State planning began in earnest by 1934 when the National Resources Board encouraged states to create planning boards. There were forty-seven states with planning boards by 1938. The author’s introduction to the bibliography refers to Hawaii’s Land Use Law and New York’s Adirondack Park Agency; state laws in Vermont, Florida, and Oregon; Massachusetts’ law regulating tidal marshes; and Delaware’s coastal zoning ban on heavy industry. The bibliography cites other bibliographies published in 1975 by the Council of Planning Librarians on state land resources planning. It also lists several articles about state growth management programs published in Planning from 1973 to 1975. The bibliography is especially strong on citations regarding state planning in New York and Massachusetts. 056. Daniels, Thomas L., and Mark B. Lapping. 1984. Has Vermont’s land use control program failed? Evaluating Act 250. Journal of the American Planning Association 50, 4: 502-8. The authors suggest that little empirical evidence exists regarding whether Vermont’s Act 250 is working. The law, which requires that large-scale developments (ten or more lots of less than ten acres each) be reviewed on ten criteria, is having difficulty mitigating negative environmental effects of development, its main goal. Act 250 is aimed at large-scale development and, as a result, allows smallscale subdivisions to escape review. The authors find this to be cause for concern. The law also unwittingly encourages large lot subdivisions (with lots of ten acres or more in size), which threaten the future of farm and forestry operations. The law has not stemmed building activity or land sales to out-of-state residents; however, the authors note that the law seems to have improved the quality of largescale development. Hence, they conclude that Act 250 has had mixed success in achieving its goals. 057. Daniels, Thomas L., and Arthur C. Nelson. 1986. Is Oregon’s farmland preservation program working? Journal of the American Planning Association 52, 1: 22-32. Although Oregon’s state-mandated farmland protection program is nationally recognized and has exhibited some successes, its future remains in doubt. A recent proliferation of hobby farms has fragmented land holdings and hinders parcel consolidation for commercial farmland expansion. The authors review literature and discuss empirical evidence (U.S. Census of Agriculture statistics) on the outcomes of farmland protection policies in Oregon compared to the state of Washington and the United States as a whole.

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 31, 2013

CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357
twenty-five years of implementation. He briefly notes other state approaches to growth management in Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington and describes experiences in Vermont with Act 250 and Act 200. The author concludes that regulation and taxation policies are needed to implement state land use planning legislation. 061. DeGrove, John M. 1996. The role of the governor in state land-use reform. In Modernizing state planning statutes: The growing smart working papers. Vol. 1. Planning Advisory Service Report no. 462/463. Chicago: American Planning Association. The prospects for adopting a state growth management statute usually depend on gubernatorial support. Often, the governor’s support is manifested in a growth commission. The author highlights the supportive roles of governors in Hawaii, Vermont, Rhode Island, Florida, Oregon, Georgia, and Maryland. He concludes that active support from the governor is “absolutely essential” to achieve state land use reform. 062. . 1994. Following in Oregon’s footsteps: The impact of Oregon’s planning program on other states. In Planning the Oregon way: A twenty year evaluation, Carl Abbott, Deborah Howe, and Sy Adler, eds. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. Oregon’s land use system is one of the more comprehensive state growth management programs in the nation. It heavily influenced the contents of other state growth management systems during the 1980s. DeGrove outlines seven influential concepts from Oregon’s program: consistency, urban growth boundaries, farm and forest land protection, an affordable housing strategy, a focus on economic development, regulatory reform, and the establishment of watchdog group support (the first 1000 Friends organization). He argues that the one major element that is missing from Oregon’s program is concurrency. The author then shows how Oregon’s program concepts have influenced Florida, New Jersey, Maine, Washington State, and other states. In fact, he pushed for Oregon-style program inputs while he was secretary of Florida’s Department of Community Affairs. Maine’s law also mirrors Oregon’s program in its adoption of ten statewide planning goals. Washington State borrowed Oregon’s tool of using urban growth boundaries to contain urbanization and established a multicounty regional planning policy for the Puget Sound region that is similar to Portland’s Metropolitan Service District. Oregon’s land use laws also influenced the adoption of land use laws in Vermont and Rhode Island in 1988. 063. . 1993. The emergence of state planning and growth management systems: An overview. In State and regional comprehensive planning: Implementing new methods for growth management, Peter A. Buchsbaum and Larry J. Smith, eds. Chicago: American Bar Association. The author provides the issue context in which state planning and growth management systems are adopted. He

291

notes that environmental concerns are still important, but support for statewide growth management is now mobilized by other quality-of-life issues and economic development (e.g., Maryland’s Economic Development, Resource Protection and Planning Act of 1992). Of state growth management programs adopted during the quiet revolution, Colorado’s was the only one that failed to evolve because of partisan politics. Florida has failed to fully fund its local concurrency requirement. Oregon’s Senate Bill 100 has great influence because of its long implementation record. The author argues that “consistency is the process thread that knits the comprehensive state planning systems” (p. 6). He identifies political stakeholders and finds that governors are strong advocates of growth management in Vermont, Maryland, Georgia, Florida, Oregon, Hawaii, and Washington. “Only cities and counties in Georgia supported a significant state and regional role in managing growth from the beginning, although local governments in other states have come to support such systems” (p. 12). The author concludes with some observations about implementing programs in selected states. 064. DeGrove, John M., with Deborah A. Miness. 1992. The new frontier for land policy: Planning and growth management in the states. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. This work, prepared in a manner similar to DeGrove’s earlier work (1984), provides an assessment of state and regional growth management systems in seven selected states and two regions. As with his 1984 book, this work is one of the most widely read and often cited publications in the state growth management literature. The monograph was intended to be an interim assessment to precede a book covering additional state programs, but that book was never published. In the introductory chapter, the author describes how the meaning of growth management expanded in the 1980s. The states described in the monograph include Florida (the Omnibus Growth Management Act of 1985), New Jersey (State Planning Act of 1985), Maine (the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act of 1988), Vermont (Act 200, the Growth Management Act of 1988), Rhode Island (Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act of 1988), Georgia (House Bill 215, the Georgia Planning Act of 1989), and Washington State (Growth Management Act of 1990 and Growth Management Act of 1991). A chapter on metropolitan governance in state growth management programs describes efforts by the Atlanta Regional Commission and the Metropolitan Service District (Metro) in the Portland, Oregon region. DeGrove concludes that the meaning of growth management has been broadened to include economic development as well as environmental protection, and he briefly summarizes Maryland’s state planning law (House Bill 1195, the Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act of 1992). Other states such as Virginia, Pennsylvania, California, and North Carolina were working on proposals for state growth management systems at the time of this work. Consistency, concurrency, and compact development patterns are three features of state programs highlighted in the concluding chapter.

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 31, 2013

292

Journal of Planning Literature
1985, John M. DeGrove and Julian C. Juergensmeyer, eds. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. DeGrove outlines an “unfinished agenda” for the implementation of Florida’s Growth Management Act. Key challenges include integrating state agency functional plans, strengthening Regional Planning Councils, reconciling Water Management District boundaries with those of Regional Planning Councils, and building the capacity of local governments to meet the demands of the new legislation. The 1985 legislature appropriated almost $10 million to state, regional, and local governments for implementation, but the author contends that more funding will be needed to meet the infrastructure needs required by the state law’s concurrency provisions. 069. . 1986b. Creative tensions in state/local relations. Growth management: Keeping on target? Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute. The author describes tensions between states and their local governments in Florida, Oregon, California, Hawaii, and North Carolina. In Florida, tension is mounting over the question of infrastructure funding. He concludes that if the strong commitment to providing funds to local government continues, then state and local tensions should be “creative rather than destructive” (p. 172). 070. . 1984. Land growth and politics. Chicago: American Planning Association. This is the best-known and most widely read and cited work on state growth management programs from the 1970s and early 1980s. It represents eight years of research (1976 to 1983). Separate chapters are provided on state land use programs in Hawaii (Act 187, the state Land Use Law of 1961), Vermont (Act 250 of 1970), Florida (the Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972), California (the Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 and the California Coastal Zone Management Act of 1976), Oregon (Senate Bill 100 of 1973), Colorado (the Land Use Act of 1970), and North Carolina (the Coastal Area Management Act of 1974). For each state program, DeGrove follows an organizational scheme that discusses issue context, the politics of adoption, the politics of implementation, and the politics of the future. He concludes with a comparative assessment of land and growth management in the states. 071. . 1983. The quiet revolution 10 years later. Planning 49, 10 (October): 25-28. Reprinted in The best of Planning: Two decades of articles from the magazine of the American Planning Association. Chicago: Planners Press, 1989. DeGrove’s discussion of new state growth management programs indicates that the foundation for their formulation lies in the recognition by state legislators that local government decisions often have regional or statewide effects. 072. DeGrove, John M., and Julian C. Juergensmeyer, eds. 1986. Perspectives on Florida’s Growth Management Act of 1985. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

065. , ed. 1991. Balanced growth: A planning guide for local government. Washington, DC: International City Management Association. This work, an edited compilation of previously published articles on local growth management tools and techniques, is organized in five parts: growth management policy, growth management techniques, financing growth, local and state roles in balancing growth, and politics and growth. DeGrove’s definition of growth management as “a calculated effort by a local government, region, or state to achieve a balance between natural systems—land, air, and water—and residential, commercial, and industrial development” (p. xiii) has been influential if not universally accepted. For articles from the book that are abstracted in this bibliography, see Florida Department of Community Affairs (1991), Fulton (1991), Kasowski (1991), and Nelson (1990a). 066. . 1989. Growth management and governance. In Understanding growth management: Critical issues and a research agenda, David J. Brower, David R. Godschalk, and Douglas R. Porter, eds. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute. DeGrove describes the adoption of state growth management programs during the first and second waves of program history. The chapter describes six state laws that mandated actions designed to strengthen growth management in the 1970s: Vermont (1970), Florida (1972), California (coastal, 1972), Oregon (1973), Colorado (1974), and North Carolina (coastal, 1974). The second wave of growth management history began with Florida’s growth management program that was put in place in 1984 and 1985. 067. . 1988. Critical area programs in Florida: Creative balancing of growth and the environment. Washington University Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law 34, 1: 51-97. The author discusses state approaches to regulating critical areas, provides an account of Florida’s experience in designating Areas of Critical State Concern, outlines how the process has developed, suggests the proper ingredients for success, and summarizes specific state critical-area designations (e.g., Big Cypress Swamp, the Green Swamp, Florida Keys, and Apalachicola Bay). Several states have experimented with the designation of specific critical areas, including New York (the Adirondack Park), New Jersey (the New Jersey Pinelands), Massachusetts (Martha’s Vineyard), and California and North Carolina (coastal areas). Other states have programs that entail statewide administration of critical areas based, in part, on the Model Land Development Code (see American Law Institute 1974 in this bibliography). These states include Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, and Wyoming (also see Healy and Rosenburg 1979 in this bibliography). Of these, Florida’s program (Chapter 380, Florida Laws) most closely resembles model code provisions. 068. . 1986a. Beyond the Growth Management Act of 1985. In Perspectives on Florida’s Growth Management Act of

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com by guest on January 31, 2013

and areas of critical state concern) have succeeded in interjecting state and regional concerns into local land use regulation. 078. CA: Sage. Local government compliance with state planning mandates: The effects of state implementation in Florida. He concludes that “Florida’s program provides evidence in support of the public choice and judicial theories of regulation” (p. affordable housing. 2013 . 1991. new issues. Stetson Law Review 17. Jay M. Stroud. DiMento (1986). The authors consider whether coercive mandates are necessary and working. regional and local governments. This collection of articles presents multiple perspectives on the 1985 growth management legislation. New Jersey. and Starnes (1986). Georgia. 3: 573-605.. local comprehensive planning. They then examine empirical data to determine whether Florida’s communities have complied with the state mandates for coastal hazard planning. The authors explore the roles of state. Newbury Park. strategies and problems. . This general work on land use contains chapters on healthy communities. DeGrove. The chapter begins with a brief overview of state growth management programs during the 1970s. The author notes that “Florida’s growth management system is modeled after an administrative theory of regulation which calls for a hierarchy of regulatory agencies tied at the top to elected officials” (p. and reform approaches. Vermont. and Washington State. which include negative fiscal impacts. “Colorado’s brave start in developing a state role in managing growth in 1970 and 1974 has been crippled by adverse court decisions and legislative hostility” (p. ed. and meeting consistency requirements. including goals to attain compact urban development and manage infrastructure needs. Growth management and the integrated roles of state. and they find that local communities with state-approved plans did not comply uniformly with the state’s mandates. DeHaven-Smith.sagepub. Florida has one of the strongest state growth management mandates.. Georgia. 076. Noonan. most of the chapters are written by attorneys. The authors argue that consistency is the “thread” that links and defines intergovernmental roles in growth management during the second wave. Florida (1972). development of regional impact. not available for review by the author. only Oregon addressed the broad scope of growth management. Regulatory theory and state land use regulation: Implications from Florida’s experience with growth management. Controlling Florida’s development. regional. 1998. Diamond. but they appear to show uneven results with regard to the content of plans. John M. The authors mention other state growth management programs but focus on Florida’s efforts. 5). and Patricia M. and Maine and describe comprehensive planning requirements in selected states.e. They describe the status of Florida’s Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 and note that Florida is a leader in land use planning. In Growth management: The planning challenge of the 1990s. 1996. Metzger. and Colorado. California. yet local comprehensive plans vary considerably in terms of compliance with those mandates. For abstracts of specific chapters included in this bibliography. problems. Wakefield. The major problem facing Florida is urban sprawl and its side effects. and each state includes a “more or less mandatory set of policies to combat urban sprawl and promote more compact urban development patterns” (p. and Patrick F.. In Cali- Downloaded from jpl. Rhode Island. Land use in America. The authors review recent literature by Burby and colleagues regarding whether state mandates significantly influence the natural-hazards elements of local plans. Public Administration Review 44: 413-20. 075. 1993. The authors conclude that coercive state mandates are successful in compelling local governments to adopt plans. Of these states. John M. This work. 413). However. however. 293 This article provides an implementation analysis of Florida’s growth management program within the context of regulatory theory. Smith. 7). Vermont (1970).. and Richard A. 418). Pressures on the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to make the review system work resulted in deficiencies in local plans because deficiencies were “readily overlooked by DCA in its efforts to approve plans that met what it considered the intent of the legislative mandate and that complied with the mandates DCA considered to be the most crucial” (p. 073. is considered to be a “somewhat radical” critique of Florida’s growth management program (see Kelly 1993 in this bibliography). NH: Hollowbrook. Henry L. 074. Florida’s first state plan was actually the source of some of the growth management system’s problems. and Nancy E. and Colorado (1970). see Bosselman (1986) O’Connell (1986). DC: Island.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 This is an important work devoted to the defining event of the second wave of state growth management programs— Florida’s Growth Management Act of 1985. and the local comprehensive planning process has not yet been able to constrain local land development.com by guest on January 31.. Vermont. Washington. The authors also discuss coastal management. The author finds that the process of areas of critical state concern is “workable even under the most politicized conditions” (p. Stein. including programs in Oregon (1973). 1988. 465). He reviews four theories of regulation and how they help to explain agency behavior. and local governments in managing growth and change. using land efficiently. The authors provide brief status reports on programs in Florida. Robert E. 418). They also discuss regional governance roles in Florida. Second-wave programs include Florida. Kelly notes that this article provides an inventory and history of planning laws in Florida since 1960. Florida is one of the leaders of about a dozen states that have devised or are considering state growth management systems. 077. New developments and future trends in local government comprehensive planning. Deyle. 1984. and a land use agenda for the twenty-first century. Lance. 4: 457-69. A key question considered by the author is the extent to which state growth management program elements (i. Journal of the American Planning Association 64. DeGrove. more growth and change.

New Jersey. Nebraska. MA: Oelgeschlager. Allison. Vermont. and other states in presenting his legal analysis and normative arguments. Vol. Rhode Island. New York. . techniques.. the author presents and evaluates the consistency debate. After introducing the doctrine of consistency and describing its legal implications. ALI land development code: Process.g.g. MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. which at the point when the article was written had been worked on for nearly ten years but still had not been adopted. and the state’s quality of life is at stake..sagepub. 083. with Edward H. 3/4: 30-54. About Growth: A Quarterly Publication about Growth Management (Fall): 1. Pennsylvania. Oregon. suggesting that states have three broad interpretations of this famous phrase. eds. Cambridge. Durant. sustainability. Texas). growth management. and contents. Vermont. 082. Maryland). Oregon. Oregon. procedures. Thomas. California. Maryland’s gradualist approach led to the adoption of growth management legislation in 1992.g. Florida. In The law of planning and zoning. Downloaded from jpl. MN: West. The author draws on existing state statutory provisions in California. 1992. but it has never endorsed state land use regulation. David J.294 Journal of Planning Literature This is the most detailed work to date on the concept of consistency. John M. emergent (North Carolina’s coastal program of 1974). Dunham. The book also includes twelve contributed papers (e. such as advocacy planning. Wyoming. Pennsylvania. Randall W. a notion that is embedded in many state growth management programs. Robert F. They provide a conceptual framework that describes the “mode” and “tempo” dynamics of growth management reforms. Brower. Maryland. Washington State established a Governor’s Task Force on Regulatory Reform. Minnesota. 3. and local governments may regulate without preparing a comprehensive plan (Alabama. Maryland’s ill-fated and ill-conceived Growth and Chesapeake Bay Protection Act of 1991 was an unsuccessful quantum effort to adopt a major regulatory system in previously nonregulated areas of the state. Comprehensive plan requirements and the consistency doctrine. and description of. Florida. With too fast of a tempo and not enough preparation. Scott. and others). 121). Ziegler Jr. St. the Model Land Development Code. 1993. This article describes issues associated with consistency requirements and the potential application of consistency requirements in Florida. Rathkopf. Kentucky. 084. see Dean 1996 in this bibliography) on the topics of land use. The author discusses the notion that zoning must be “in accordance with the comprehensive plan” (p. Hawaii. North Carolina. sprawling development patterns continue.g. Rathkopf and Daren A. Georgia. it is the controlling instrument for at least some land use decisions (e. Rhode Island.. The author provides the context for. Florida. In other states. 080. 2013 . Maryland’s 1991 growth management proposal was soundly defeated. Florida’s Growth Management Act of 1985: Coping with consistency.. T. The consistency doctrine and the limits of planning. and Rhode Island). Vol. Maine. DeGrove and Julian C. Policy Studies Review 12.com by guest on January 31.. Larry W. Florida. Hawaii). Oregon. and Washington. Gunn and Hain. Delaware. Internal consistency is one of the requirements for the adequacy of a comprehensive plan in some states (e. and Dallas D. Arden H. 1975. Colorado. and Don Haynes. problems. He highlights alternatives to consistency requirements. However. An outline of “Proposed Official Draft No. Some states rule the plan is at most advisory. 1986. Juergensmeyer. California. . Miner. Commission searches for land use treasures. 079. manageable statute. 081. and Oregon have been leaders in mandating the consistency of local plans and mandating that local actions be consistent with statewide or regional plans. It explores the question of what the relationship should be between local government plans and regulatory actions. Kentucky. A diagram at the conclusion of the article shows the various consistency links existing in Florida’s planning and growth management system. Maryland. The authors find that the following states have growth management programs as of 1995: Florida. and provides recommendations for consistency advocates. The authors draw on experiences in eight growth management states (Hawaii. 1” of the American Law Institute model code is provided at the conclusion of the article. Joseph S. Ryan. Hawaii. and property rights. and Vermont) to identify and analyze four types of growth management reforms.. 1996. DC: Urban Land Institute. Vermont. Washington.. Vermont. In Perspectives on Florida’s Growth Management Act of 1985. Hawaii. Florida. Cambridge. North Carolina. New Jersey. They also note that (1) Connecticut enacted a plan of policies in 1992 that designated certain areas as suitable for different types of development and that (2) four states (California. Georgia. A third group of states prohibits local adoption of zoning ordinances without adopting a comprehensive plan (Arizona. North Carolina. and quantum (e. and Vermont).g. Washington. if the local government or planning commission does adopt a plan. DiMento. Colorado has maintained a schizophrenic approach to land use planning in that it was one of the first states to create a land use commission. In Management and control of growth: Issues. 1980. and the state legislature established a Land Use Study Commission to complete a road map for integrating land use and environmental laws into a single. This article is a representative ex- fornia. The politics of growth management reform in the states: A comparative analysis. This chapter concludes with a discussion of substantive and procedural issues surrounding comprehensive plans. Nebraska. Indiana. California. convergent (New Jersey). Maine. 4. New Jersey. Maryland. eds. New Jersey. Paul. This has turned out to be a daunting task for the commission. eds. The authors then describe four types of political dynamics exhibited by growth management reforms: gradualist (e. Durkan. and Virginia) have recently considered statewide growth management legislation. Montana. trends. Idaho.

The author describes the Monroe County plan’s innovations.com by guest on January 31. Ehrenhalt. where every land use decision is made under the aegis of an elected metropolitan government in accordance with the dictates of state law. see Wells (1996 in this bibliography). Trade. ed. They emphasize several growth management techniques recommended by the Task Group on Development Inside Urban Growth Boundaries for inclusion in Oregon’s urban growth management program. among other things. 1964. 089. This law established a State Planning Commission. 088. regional government. Evaluation of policies recommended by the Urban Growth Management Task Group: Technical report. However. The report’s recommendations include developing a “how to” methodological guidance for local governments. This short part of a larger multiauthor article on master plans describes the gargantuan task of preparing local comprehensive plans and having them reviewed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The New Jersey State Planning Act was signed into law in early 1986. This publication can also be viewed at the Department of Land Conservation and Development’s web page (http:\\www. Newbury Park. The major factor leading to approval of the planning act was the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Mt. Monroe County (in the Florida Keys) had the first plan found to be in compliance with state law and rules. transportation efficient land use strategies. 8: 20-24. Richard Forester. however. 1987. 085. required a State Development and Redevelopment Plan. The aim of the plan is to provide improved programming of public actions affecting physical development in California. Unlike many other state growth management programs. Notes on the master plan. but a new phase of state planing is dawning.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 ample from the growth management newsletter published by the state’s Department of Community. Laurel II decision (1983). 1995a. 148). regional urban service standards. and annexation plans. Salem: Transportation and Growth Management Program. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. and Economic Development. Pacific Rim Resources. and light rail transit) as a role model. The whole country is looking to Portland (especially its urban growth boundary. The great wall of Portland. Stein. The author argues. state. The Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program also published a video to introduce and accompany the guidebook. 091. Dye Management Group. 1995b). John W. that the urban growth boundary has not prevented urban sprawl. 1993. Jay M. 086. 2013 . it has only contained it. The first phase of a state development plan is moving toward completion in California. Lee D. 1997. Epling. The author presents different local views in the debate over expansion of the Portland area urban growth boundary. 1990. that cities and counties lacked planning data. California’s governor appointed a Coordinating Council on Urban Policy to address the problem of coordinating local planning and state development policies. CA: Sage. focused public investment plans. The New Jersey state planning process: An experiment in intergovernmental negotiations. New interests in the 1960s represent a distinct break with past state planning practice.or. and instituted the now well-known process of “cross acceptance. 1995b. 295 This guidebook introduces the following urban growth management policies: infill and redevelopment strategies. Chicago: American Planning Association. Florida: The rush is on. EcoNorthwest. Governing 10. and the author expresses doubt that the planning act would have passed with mandatory consistency requirements. Alan. . John W. and J. urban growth management agreements. Olympia: Growth Management Division. The research led to publication of its more simply worded companion.sagepub. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 30: 84-90. This study was prepared to help the state of Washington develop a strategy to meet the data and data management needs of local government planning under the Growth Management Act. California law requires that the Office of State Planning provide and maintain a comprehensive state development plan. Growth management data inventory and collection report. Salem: Transportation and Growth Management Program. The authors conduct a literature review of urban growth management tools in the United States. “The State Planning Law requires that the Office of Planning divide the state into regions for purposes of physical development planning” (p. specific development plans. 087. interim development restrictions. The authors content that the height of state planning activity was reached during the era of the National Resources Planning Board in the 1930s. Dyckman.us). adequate public facilities requirements. The author describes the continued infatuation with the Portland region’s experiment in growth control. Tools of the Trade (EcoNorthwest et al. In Growth management: The planning challenge of the 1990s. The study found. Downloaded from jpl. 090. New Jersey’s planning act does not place any planning requirements on local governments. He examines the status of state planning using California as a case study. 1989. and staff and financial resources to collect data for planning. Inc. Tools of the trade. Einsweiler. data automation capabilities.lcd. which passed the legislature in 1990. but the boundaries of these regions have met with local resistance. Reprinted in The best of Planning: Two decades of articles from the magazine of the American Planning Association. Washington State Department of Community Development. For another example. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. State development planning: The California case.” The author provides background of the issues confronting state officials prior to passage of the act. minimum density zoning. Another criticism of the Portland region’s growth management program is its escalating housing prices. The author describes components of the California Development Plan.

The State Land Development Plan is designed to provide greater specificity to the goals established in the state’s adopted comprehensive plan (Chapter 187. Proposition 20. among others. Techniques for discouraging sprawl. Originally published by the Florida Department of Community Affairs in Technical Memo 4. In later sections of the article. and transportation. along with two phases of experience with the Coastal Act of 1976. Fischer. This tightly written article introduces the reader to several growth management techniques. ed. new requirements for transportation elements. The techniques include mixed use and cluster development. illustrated brochure describes Florida’s sustainable communities program and how it is designed to curb sprawl and increase livability and quality of Downloaded from jpl. As local coastal programs get completed. affordable housing. 098. 1996b.com by guest on January 31. level of service standards. . urban infill development and redevelopment.sagepub. The author notes that the coastal commission’s staff has dropped from 210 to 130 persons. concluding with positive comments about the results of the process. 093. and the preliminary State Development and Redevelopment Plan was not released by the State Planning Commission until January 1989. Hillsborough County and the City of Tampa. The act created the Office of State Planning and the State Planning Commission and mandated preparation and adoption of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan. The 1989 plan (the first revision of the original State Land Development Plan adopted by the governor’s office in 1986) is intended to provide a strategic. Journal of the American Planning Association 51. Florida Statutes). This is a guidebook to assist local governments with the preparation of the evaluation and appraisal reports as required by Rule 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative Code. other staff members are pondering their future. State growth management: The New Jersey experience. capital improvements programming. Just what do you mean . Evaluation and appraisal reports: A guidebook for Florida cities and counties. emphasizing the rural. 094. Dallas.296 Journal of Planning Literature life in pilot communities. and the City of Orlando. Michael L. the California Coastal Commission has been effective in establishing partnerships with local governments to protect the state’s coastline. 097. 096. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Community Affairs. 1989. . Tallahassee: Florida Department of Community Affairs. In Balanced growth: A planning guide for local government. 1991. the hillsides that have not been graded. Epling describes the process of cross acceptance in some detail. 1985. directionsetting document that serves as the basis for additional statutes and budget appropriations. and local growth management. The demonstration projects selected are the City of Boca Raton. 1989. the beaches that are still open. Development is exploding outward in Florida’s suburbs. suburban. July 1-29. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Community Affairs. statewide strategies. Checklist for EAR sufficiency review. Florida adopted a State and Regional Planning Act in 1984 to establish a framework for an integrated system of state. the City of Ocala. the organizational structure. The state planning process has been controversial. TX: Southwestern Legal Foundation. state planning mandates and goals. The State Land Development Plan. . . The author suggests that after twelve years. 1997. Florida Department of Community Affairs. The author discusses the policy environment. 3: 312-21. glossy. . The commission has survived an onslaught of bills to kill or cripple the coastal program. The guidebook provides examples of how to evaluate the achievement of objectives. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Community Affairs. The State Land Development Plan is also intended to guide the state’s Regional Planning Councils in preparing comprehensive regional policy plans. 2d ed. John M. The California Coastal Commission measures its success “in the wetlands that have not been filled. he describes statewide and regional structures. and the process of cross acceptance. and the Florida Sustainable Communities Demonstration Project is designed to provide models for future development. 1996a. DC: International City Management Association. The first edition was published in March 1995. variable transportation level of service standards. regional. 2013 . This oversized. and urban components of the state plan. including a regional design system. urban services areas. The author was appointed executive director of the New Jersey State Planning Commission in 1986. The author devotes attention to the State Planning Commission’s evaluation of alternative growth scenarios during the planning process and describes the seven tiers of the state plan. This article is part of a symposium on coastal zone management. along with the sponsorship of local programs. “sustainable”? The Florida Sustainable Communities Demonstration Project. water resources. and the scenic vistas that have not been blocked or captured by man’s works” (p. and urban growth boundaries. Martin County. . and provisions of the State Planning Act. The act places special emphasis on land use. 4. Proceedings of the Institute on Planning. 1989. 095. Establishing an independent coastal conservancy agency was critical to its success. The author describes the Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972. It also has an appendix that discusses major issues of statewide concern such as concurrency management. California’s coastal program: Larger-than-local interests built into local plans. 092. 320). Washington. . The plan provides policies organized under cross acceptance provides an alternative to mandatory consistency. and others. Zoning and Eminent Domain. The New Jersey legislature passed the State Planing Act in 1985. DeGrove. and it was signed into law in 1986. This is a compliance checklist that accompanies the guidebook on preparing evaluation and appraisal reports (see Florida Department of Community Affairs 1996b). transferable development rights. natural resources protection.

The article concludes with brief observations about experiences in Oregon. 1991. Furthermore. and Mark S.. The author argues that Oregon’s program is best suited for urban areas but Vermont’s program is more appropriate for rural portions of states. The state exercises virtually no oversight of local planning. consistency and compatibility requirements. The authors examine citizen support for Maine’s state growth management law. Florida. 1996. DC: International City Management Association. except for review and comments on housing elements of general plans. and Maine. In Modernizing state planning statutes: The growing smart working papers. and Rhode Island). 462/463. he finds that local governments cannot be expected to address regional consequences of growth. . a Second Revolution Shifts Control to the States. state roles (in terms of financial assistance and sanctions for noncompliance). California has not attempted to manage its growth like other states such as Florida and New Jersey. the state also required that zoning ordinances be consistent with comprehensive plans. A synthesis of the two state models. Oregon’s system mandates local comprehensive planning. He provides structural analyses of plan review procedures. Rhode Island. Gale. which established a state-level case-by-case review structure for new development. Public support for local comprehensive planning under statewide growth management: Insights from Maine. 2013 . Originally published as “In Land-Use Planning. New Jersey.com by guest on January 31. Journal of Planning Education and Research 11. and fusion (Washington State). He concludes that all of these efforts. 124). Florida. Vermont. 3: 192-205. Eight state-sponsored growth management programs: A comparative analysis.” 1989. 104. 100.” might provide the most sound basis for land use planning. CA: Sage. California. 101. and California. 1992. not Hawaii. Maryland passed its Chesapeake Bay protection law in 1984. regional-local cooperative (Vermont and Georgia). He concludes that the trend appears to be away from state-dominant approaches toward the other three models. Oregon. State and regional roles in transportation and land use. Gale identifies four models of state-sponsored growth management programs: state dominant (Oregon. have done little to truly manage California’s growth in the 1980s. 1984). Florida. and Delaware all passed statewide land use planning laws in 1988. Freilich. The authors find that California began requiring that local governments prepare comprehensive plans more than fifty years ago. in this article. in Governing 2. Sliced on the cutting edge: Growth management and growth control in California. Downloaded from jpl. the author concludes. Maine. Gay. 3: 73-74. Contrast Callies’ statements (1994a. Chicago: American Planning Association. 4: 425-39. 1996. John M. The second revolution in land use planning. The author summarizes growth management in the 1970s and 1980s. which was enacted in May 1988. 119). Maine has joined the ranks of Oregon and Florida with mandated local comprehensive planning. By 1971. Planning Advisory Service Report no. one of the nation’s most rural states. with Fulton who. contends that it is California. 103. Dennis E. state-local negotiated (New Jersey). Vol. Dennis E. 6: 40-45. young adults with high education levels and good earnings in professional and managerial occupations are likely to be the socioeconomic group that is most supportive of state-mandated growth management.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 nineteen of the twenty-six goals of the state comprehensive plan. Their results indicate that support for growth management varies by education and other socioeconomic variables. In Growth management: The planning challenge of the 1990s. This is probably the most influential or often cited single article about state growth management. State solutions to growth management: Vermont. Vermont. Natural Resources and Environment 10. Robert H. Gale compares state growth management programs in Oregon.sagepub. ed. when New York. Journal of the American Planning Association 58. 1993. William. 1992. The author predicts that regional growth management is likely to emerge because a heavy-handed state role appears unlikely in California. H. Gale. including the California Coastal Act. Florida. He argues that the new wave of land use controls is supported by a broader constituency than was the quiet revolution. Stein. adopted Act 250. Rhode Island. In Balanced growth: A planning guide for local government. Fulton considers these acts collectively as a near repeat of the quiet revolution of the early 1970s. “Texas passed optional planning requirements for local government as part of an impact-fee law in 1987” (p. and Suzanne Hart. Oregon and a synthesis. Georgia. George E. ed. that “may have the most extensive set of local plan- 297 ning requirements of any state in the nation” (p. Survey results indicate that there has been a favorable reaction by the public to state-mandated local comprehensive planning in Maine. The authors describe the background policy context for adoption of state land use planning in Maine. 117). Newbury Park. then summarize their methodology and present survey findings. Rapid economic growth along the Atlantic Coast led to increased support for state growth management legislation. in a manner consistent with statewide goals. Yet. The authors review transportation planning concepts and present alternatives for integrating transportation and land use. Washington. New Jersey passed its state planning act in 1985. Despite these pioneering efforts. 102. Vermont. Vermont. including local growth controls. In Maine. White. 1. An appendix provides the full citations of growth management legislation in the eight states. DeGrove.. and Washington State. Jay M. a strong state role in land use planning remains unpopular in California. Maine. 099. and Vermont all adopted land use controls “to protect rural or scenic areas from development” (p. or “urban/rural bifurcation. and key features of the programs. including urban growth boundaries. Fulton.

In Management and control of growth: Issues. 111. and publication of a state urban strategy (1978). He also discusses Florida’s critical-areas approach and Vermont’s development permit process. A natural-resources analogy is often used as an argument in favor of growth management. State growth management: A carrying capacity policy. 106. The author also mentions other state programs such as Oregon’s Land Conservation and Development Act of 1973. Urban growth management Oregon style. 51). growing. 1: 43-53. David J. DC: Urban Land Institute. The report describes the reconfiguration of some of the boundaries of Regional Development Centers. He highlights selected innovative strategies. 1996b. David. In The practice of state and regional planning. Gottlieb. the California Coastal Act of 1976. 1986. He describes Hawaii’s land classification system and growth policy. The authors indi- 105.sagepub. Georgia’s growth strategies experiment: A five year status report. Irving Hand. Frank S. 109. and an Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan was being prepared in 1994. The state’s Development of Regional Impact program is working well. which have been modified to accommodate a carrying capacity policy. The article highlights implementation of Oregon’s planning program at the local level in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The author describes the characteristics of state growth policy in an era of scarcity and discusses the concept of carrying capacity as a growth policy benchmark. A draft version of the state plan was accepted by the commission in 1988. problems. Chicago: American Planning Association. urbanization. and James Reilly. and Bruce McDowell. Paul’s Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area (1967). and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. This is a short article that provides an overview of Oregon’s statewide land use planning program. Miner. and infrastructure effects of future growth scenarios. the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (1965). 44). and Rhode Island. Wisconsin’s Shoreland Protection Program (1966). 1994. including California’s six regional coastal commissions (1972). and New England’s River Basin Commission (1967). Steve C. and Dallas D. The coordinated planning program’s mediation process has been used only twice since its establishment in 1991. The authors indicate that “the more powerful states in growth management planning have been Oregon. Randall W. The author finds that only Florida has adopted major parts of the American Law Institute’s Model Land Development Code.com by guest on January 31. Georgia. Vol. Massachusetts’ Zoning Appeals Law (1969). Florida. although Colorado and several other states have implemented one or more of the code’s recommended tools in modified form. 110. 1975. 2013 . and the state’s Regional Development Centers are now preparing the regional plans mandated by the 1989 act. and a growth policy process in Massachusetts in the 1970s that included establishment of the “nation’s first regional land use commission with power to overrule local zoning laws” on Martha’s Vineyard (p. Paul D. The article briefly describes New Jersey’s state planning process and the development of the New Jersey state plan. The author distinguishes between the notions of sustainability and maximization (efficiency). 1996a. techniques. 107. Minneapolis–St. Georgia Planner 1 (February): 5-9. Georgia Department of Community Affairs. He concludes that the quality of places can be eroded with increased growth and that growth management provides a normative framework for local development policy. Scott. Georgia Department of Community Affairs. and California are more “locally oriented” (p. 328). Local comprehensive plan preparation and adoption have met and exceeded the initial expectations of state program administrators. . 1995. 1984) as the definitive background source for their classification. Goal 14. This is an important five-year status report on the implementation of the 1989 Georgia Planning Act. The vast majority of local governments have completed their comprehensive plans. the authors defer to DeGrove (1989. Maine’s Site Location Law (1970). 3. The authors describe a computer simulation model used by the New Jersey Office of State Planning to measure the land use. Godschalk. Vermont’s Environmental Control Law (Act 250 of 1970). Washington. Urban development. They provide “an insider’s account of the structure between ‘rational-comprehensive’ and ‘political-broker’ models of land use planning at the state level” (p. A simulation model for state growth management planning and evaluation: The New Jersey case. Environment and Urban Systems 18. Vermont.. The author uses the metaphor “killing the goose that laid the golden egg” to show how growth management is designed to mitigate negative effects of growth on quality of life. 108.” but Maine. Gordon. trends. Downloaded from jpl. The author concludes with a discussion of issues in state growth policy and some suggestions for the future application of the concept of carrying capacity. Paul D. eds. Public Management 70. eds. Florida’s state comprehensive plan in 1978. The author lists the “nine main programs in the ‘revolutionary’ cadre” of the quiet revolution (p. Massachusetts’ Wetland Protection Program (1963). The “golden egg” as a natural resource: Toward a normative theory of growth management. He concludes that Oregon’s program has been successful in addressing many intergovernmental growth issues. So. Computers. New York’s Adirondack Park Agency.298 Journal of Planning Literature Brower. This illustrated publication highlights certain local success stories in Georgia with regard to implementing comprehensive plans and providing more efficient local service delivery systems. Society and Natural Resources 8: 49-56. is considered by the author to be the key goal in the state growth management system. . Gottlieb. achieving. 319): Hawaii’s Land Use Law (1961). 1988. However. a federal act. Georgia’s communities: Planning. 8: 9-12. fiscal. Atlanta: Office of Coordinated Planning.

marsh. 1960. The report identifies reasons why Oregon has failed to attract new industry. OR: Governor’s Task Force on Land Use. “enough. Governor Joe Frank Harris appointed a thirty-fivemember growth-strategies commission to prepare strategies for growth management in Georgia. Washington. 112. and Tennessee. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 27. Guskind describes rapid office Downloaded from jpl. Recommendations of the final report include establishing a strategy to combat urban sprawl that includes urban service areas. John DeGrove and Thomas Pelham. Vol. Frank Schnidman. or one of the primary concerns: Alaska. A solid waste management plan was adopted in 1972. New Mexico. 115. In Management and control of growth. 4. Jane A Silverman. The commission’s work and state investment has resulted in expansion of the district’s economy. Jr. The task force’s report provides a brief overview of Oregon’s land use program since adoption of Senate Bill 10 in 1969. big-brother approach. GA: Governor’s Growth Strategies Commission. The commission issued a report that recommends that the state adopt a three-tiered coordinated planning system that consists of the state and local governments and Regional Development Centers. 1989. but the state land use program is not cited as one of those reasons. small portions of woodland. At least thirty-four states had enacted state planning legislation by the mid-1960s. notes that additional research is needed on what types of development patterns are efficient and the costs of various development patterns. Atlanta. Quality growth partnership: The bridge to Georgia’s future. Salem. Strict zoning and environmental controls are imposed within the district. Aelred J. New Jersey says. In 1981. Guskind. attacking urban sprawl through improved intergovernmental coordination. according to the tabulation of data provided in this article. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Community Affairs. Other recommendations in the final report include emphasis on Goal 9 (economic development). New Jersey tried state land use regulation in the mid1970s. and coordinating efforts. Robert. The report contains broad recommendations that center on the following areas: addressing human needs. It also discusses how to streamline state review of local land use decisions and provides recommendations on how to complete local comprehensive plans that are lagging way behind compliance schedules. Survey of state planning agencies. 4: 325-31.sagepub. They conclude that the modeling effect has had indirect effects on the state plan. Colorado. eds. Governor Vic Atiyeh formed a twelve-citizen task force with a charge to consider how Oregon’s land use program affects economic development. 1989. a redefinition of Goal 3 (agricultural lands). although the state of Maine was preparing a plan that included land use. 113. suburban and exurban growth proliferated in New Jersey. The survey results also reveal that seven states had state planning as the primary concern. and Tennessee. Robert C. Grant. The results of that survey indicate a striking increase in the number and importance of state planning agencies. and the state had a history of defending municipal home rule. California. Hawaii. Gray.” Reprinted in The best of Planning: Two decades of articles from the magazine of the American Planning Association. strengthening local communities. Florida’s Governor Bob Martinez appointed a task force that recommends a bold and comprehensive program to encourage more concentrated growth and discourage sprawling urban development patterns. 1988. and meadows. Maine. DC: Urban Land Institute. contains waterways. The task force.. 2013 . 114. 1961. an area of approximately thirty-two square miles. building capacity for growth. New Jersey created the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission in 1969 to turn the area into recreational. A land use master plan for the area was adopted in 1970 that called for the creation of a park and wildlife preserve and the recovery of environmentally devastated areas. A total of forty-three specific recommendations are provided in the final report and a brief research review is provided in an appendix. using innovative land use regulations to enhance Florida’s urban environment. Governor’s Task Force on Urban Growth Patterns. and Rufus C. Chicago: American Planning Association. This article describes a survey by the American Institute of Planners’ National Committee on State Planning. Young Jr. and industrial parks and residential areas. This book provides a historical account of the evolution of the Adirondack Park and Adirondack Park Agency in upstate New York from a political perspective. Only Hawaii had a state-comprehensive plan addressing land use. Pennsylvania. tidal flow land. Governor’s Task Force on Land Use. The Hackensack Meadowlands.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 cate that a chief criticism of the state modeling effort is its top-down. The Adirondack Park: A political history. Through the 1980s. commercial. Techniques in application. Final report. Syracuse. 116.com by guest on January 31. Final report. Graham. 1981. acquiring land to preserve natural areas. Federal funding was expected to further boost the role of state planning. Maine. Turning it around in the Hackensack Meadowlands. but the state was experiencing a severe recession. Office of the Governor. and ensuring the proper siting of transportation fa- 299 cilities to enhance urban mobility. and development of a technical-assistance program. safeguarding the environment. June 1988. It serves as a gateway to New Jersey from New York City. 118. 117. Office of the Governor. The only states that had “local planning assistance” as the primary concern of the agency at the time of the survey were California. better state agency coordination. The report’s recommended framework for coordinated planning was implemented when Georgia passed its 1989 planning act. developing a strategic state urban policy. 1982. Frank. Colorado. Report to the Governor. 1978. NY: Syracuse University Press. Governor’s Growth Strategies Commission. which included former secretaries of the state’s Department of Community Affairs.

Greg C. Olympia: Washington State Office of Community Development. Jane A Silverman.. The Oregon Land Use Act: Implications for farmland and open space protection.. This article describes New Jersey’s proposal to adopt a state land use plan containing seven “tiers” that include redevelopment and growth areas. Diane Chandler. Washington. Frank Schnidman. Techniques in application. and so forth) are described. among others.sagepub..com by guest on January 31. 1988. 119. They describe major elements of Oregon’s program. service districts. In Management and control of growth.300 Journal of Planning Literature Specific growth management techniques (zoning. Young. The author traces the evolution of growth management. Appendix B provides the status of local comprehensive planning in the state in 1976. which includes a process of cross acceptance of commenting on local plans. Haworth and Anderson. 2013 . Young Jr. The second draft of the plan. identifies state agencies and their relationships with local governments.e. . The authors use economic theory to show the effects that minimum lot sizes have on the supply of land in exclusive farm use zones. Washington. but the state will channel its infrastructure funds to targeted-growth areas and restrict expenditures in limited-growth areas. This work is an excerpt from chapter 7 of Healy (1976). 4. 473). limited growth areas. and state and federal agencies. developments of regional impact. The authors conclude that past characterizations of Oregon’s program as “collaborative planning” are probably unattainable. Harris. 4. Shirack. reviews federal and local coordination. Frank Schnidman. 1978b. A State Planning Commission was established in early 1986 to draft a state land use plan. and many unanswered questions remain. Journal of the American Planning Association 48. “Growth management theory must validate itself through quantitative research on the actual measurable impacts of growth management techniques” (p. Washington. 122. Toward new policies for the states. Coordination: The next phase in land use planning. state interventions should be limited to the mini- development as creating a sense of urgency for planned growth. 4. and Rufus C.. The author contends that “As the use of growth management spreads. He summarizes direct state controls over land uses. new problems follow in its wake” (p. Land use planning in the State of Washington: The role of local government. then examine how urban growth boundaries and exclusive farm use zoning combine to protect farmland in that state. 120. planning was ordered by the State Supreme Court in its Mt. DC: Urban Land Institute. In Management and control of growth. and Rosalyn P. Jane A Silverman. Jr. Laurel rulings. Inc. but the reduction of conversions has not been uniform among counties. This work is excerpted from chapter 8 of Healy’s Land Use and the States (1976).. which require municipalities to provide for low. Vol. The author cites several examples of a lack of coordination between state and local. The plan is based more on incentives than on regulatory provisions. Healy describes criteria for better land use policies and recommends that states regulate areas of critical state concern. The author outlines the political issues associated with the regulation of land use at the local and state levels of government. Issues in implementing state land use laws. Downloaded from jpl. The author describes alternatives to growth controls. The authors examine farmland protection policy as a component of Oregon’s statewide land use management program. 124. Daniels. He argues that state land use programs add significantly to the costs of development. Healy cites coordination as one of the major issues that will need to be addressed in future efforts to manage growth at the state level. and Rufus C. and the regulation of power plants and transmission lines by twenty-two states. 1982. linkage fees.and moderate-income housing. Robert G. Vol. Healy. 1976. then explore the political and economic issues associated with determining the minimum lot size to be used for exclusive farm use zones. eds. 466). There is ongoing debate about the exclusionary effects of growth management practices (i. Zoning and land use decisions are still left to individual towns. Growth management reconsidered. moratoria. growth controls). 1978c. However. Jane A Silverman. In Management and control of growth. Vol. eds. DC: Urban Land Institute. is expected to work without regulatory mandates because all localities need the state’s financial assistance. The authors review data from a six-county area of the northern Willamette Valley and find that evidence of the effectiveness of Oregon’s farmland protection program is inconclusive. the control of large-scale developments by six states. . Minimum lot sizes established for exclusive farm use zones seem to have reduced the rate of conversion to nonfarm uses. Thomas L. She cites Florida’s growth management program and New Jersey’s extensive plan for resource protection of the Pine Barrens (The Pinelands). 123. and open space. if not inaccurate. and Rufus C. This work summarizes the state of Washington’s numerous local and regional planning laws. but planning adds value to final development projects and little evidence exists that state land use controls unfavorably affect state economies. The article concludes with a discussion of a “second generation” of state growth management that includes Florida’s Growth Management Act of 1985 and indications that the states of Georgia and Maine are on the verge of adopting statewide growth management programs. 1978a. Journal of Planning Literature 3. Frank Schnidman. 121. Theory and empirical research indicate that growth controls frequently result in increased prices for home buyers. Gustafson. DC: Urban Land Institute. state and state. and developments of regional benefit. Techniques in application. including linkage programs and inclusionary zoning. However. Little research exists regarding whether growth management techniques are having their desired effects. and provides conclusions and recommendations. 4: 466-82. eds. Young Jr. 3: 365-73. including the adoption of critical-areas regulation by nine states. describes the local land use decision-making process. Techniques in application.

urban development. Maine. and then offers recommendations. Other chapters discuss alternative approaches to land use control. 131. Healy. Newbury Park. Arnold M. and that there is a need for staff devoted to full-time research. Rosenburg.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 mum needed to protect nonlocal interests. The report covers nineteen different issues in a format that introduces a policy question. Jay Stein. Georgia. and the potential for the program to promote sustainable development. The author discusses. She concludes that applied. 130. Robert G. A glossary is also provided. Policy analysis: Adequate public facilities requirements and focused public investment plans. The author suggests that state involvement has caused local governments to draw their urban growth boundaries smaller than they would have done otherwise. and implementation experiences” (p. A research agenda for Oregon planning: Problems and practice for the 1990s. prior to preparing this report. with James D’Amicis. Cambridge. 2d ed. Salem: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. The authors describe the national context. Howe. Florida’s concurrency. Land use and the states. She lists Oregon’s statewide goals and summarizes implementation experiences. It provides a history of past research efforts. but with additional recommendations for better state land policies. The author describes past efforts to evaluate Oregon’s land use planning program. eds. Howitt. 1991a. “It is ironic how little is known about the [Oregon land use] program’s impact. Development of a research action plan: Issues and opportunities. the local planning pro- Downloaded from jpl. local planners. Henderson. and develops a research agenda. DC: Resources for the Future. New Jersey’s cross acceptance. then outlines options. elaborates on the terms monitoring and evaluation. provides an analysis. MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. the enactment of the 1988 Growth Management Act. 1979. which was adopted in 1988. In Planning the Oregon way: A twenty year evaluation. She recommends as a first priority that concurrency be considered for adoption in Oregon. 128. The author contends that research is not currently a highly valued component of land use planning. most of the research has been directed at the program’s effects in the Portland metropolitan area and has been conducted by scholars from outside the state. and regional review in Florida. It was solicited to determine the prospects for including concurrency requirements in Oregon’s planning program. more detail on alternative approaches. ed. effectiveness. Baltimore. Washington. 301 The author describes the origins and program features of Oregon’s nationally recognized state land use program. 125. and John S. the initiation and funding of the program. . Florida. and academicians prior to completing the report. . and elements of new policies for the states. and a state development plan. the establishment of a Commission on Land Conservation and Economic Development in 1987. 1976. 2013 . Few public agencies engage in self-evaluation because it can be threatening. Surprisingly. suggests a research agenda. and Oregon continues to introduce innovations to its land use program. 1994. this work provides an inventory of promising concepts of growth management from other states. The author interviewed department staff. Salem: Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. housing and agricultural policies. and Florida’s growth management efforts. The report includes appendices containing laws and rules from Oregon. 65). the establishment of the Office of Comprehensive Planning (OCP) in 1989. California’s coastal plan and program. This is probably the most detailed account to be published on the state of Maine’s Growth Management Act. Carl Abbott. This report was intended to lay the groundwork for development of a research program for Oregon’s Department of Land Conservation and Development. The author concludes that the department should seriously consider establishing a research advisory board. and Vermont. 1993. among other noteworthy program elements. interviewed several members of the state agency staff. MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Salem: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. 127. and additional information on permit administration in California. This edition is similar to earlier work by Healy (1976). CA: Sage. In Growth management: The planning challenge of the 1990s. issues in implementing state land use controls. 132. . Deborah A. He also recommends that a state appeals board and state planning office adopt environmental standards. Review of growth management strategies used in other states. 1991b. Young & Company. 1996..com by guest on January 31. visionary research is needed. and Washington. and describes techniques for creating a research culture to build support for recognizing the value of research. Growth management in Oregon. 275). 1993. Growth management in Maine.sagepub. and Sy Adler. 129. Healy finds that these states occasionally followed the Model Land Development Code but adapted it to their own unique problems. This report is the major work product sponsored by Oregon’s Transportation and Growth Management Program on adequate public-facilities requirements. Oregon’s program has survived three ballot box challenges and “continues to enjoy widespread public support” (p. 126. This well-cited book provides chapters on Vermont’s first four years of experience with Act 250. . Deborah Howe. The author. Published as one of many papers from the Department of Land Conservation and Development’s Urban Growth Management Study. discusses management issues that influence how research is administered. Land use and the states. She concludes with discussions on resource protection.

including compact. . North Carolina (coastal planning). Implementing state growth management in the U. CA: Sage. 1989. and local roles for the six state programs. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Community Affairs. The Joint Legislative Committee on Land Use oversees Oregon’s land conservation and development program.S. They conclude that the 1988 law created an effective framework for stimulating local planning activity. however. ed. An appendix provides selected provisions of the 1988 Growth Management Act. and linear development. 1996. Harris. Findings suggest that there are substantial cost savings from contiguous development patterns (see also Kelly 1993). and Washington. The report analyzes compliance with the local comprehensive planning mandate. Rhode Island. The author identifies and describes the role of consensual group processes in state growth management programs in three states. Judith E.: Strategies for coordination. satellite. Implementing state growth management in the United States: Strategies for coordination. State-level coordination has been disappointing. Abby. Inc. she highlights key differences between the state programs. and Mark Baldassare. Virginia. After outlining common elements of growth management programs. 138. In Growth management: The planning challenge of the 1990s. 3: 365-85. 1992) publications cited above. In addition. partly because there are no good models of practice. and development management plan approaches. The twelve states included California (coastal planning). New Jersey has a collaborative.742 local and regional comprehensive plans that had been prepared in twelve states with growth management and coastal planning mandates. Inc. James Duncan and Associates. This is an earlier version of the Innes (1993.. although a few other plans have been submitted and are pending review. 1992. of the Growth Management Act and the abolition of OCP in December 1991. 139. University of California at Berkeley. New Jersey. The final report also addresses other land conservation and development activities and contains sections on compensatory zoning and land use planning and tax assessment. Georgia. Vermont employs a decentralized. rates of growth. Kaiser. in the midst of a state budget crisis. and Wade-Trim. verbal policy.302 Journal of Planning Literature stitute of Urban and Regional Development. She concludes that the lack of group facilitation has limited the successes of group processes. 1976. Final report. Rhode Island. Local plans were supposed to be completed within one year of the date that statewide planning goals became effective. 136. A survey of the status of planning in Oregon’s cities and counties reveals that only two local comprehensive plans have been completed. Joint Legislative Committee on Land Use. and Vermont. scattered. Oregon’s land use law is considered to be the root of the land classification plan. Vermont and New Jersey.. Florida. 542. yet the program has not been successful in some respects. 133. Institute of Urban and Regional Development Working Paper no. the authors consider the repeal. Jay M. Van Horn-Gray Associates. Local comprehensive plans today typically consist of a hybrid of land use design. and David R. Historically. Stein. Ivey. consensusbuilding approach known as cross acceptance.com by guest on January 31. laissez-faire. Oregon. is top-down bureaucratic. 137. Florida’s overall approach. Salem. growth management mandate designers have not provided the tools and strategies that are needed to promote coordination in the growth management process. Berkeley: In- Downloaded from jpl. contiguous. 2013 . Bennett. Georgia. 4: 440-53. Virtually all of the remaining local governments had sought extensions of the deadline for preparing a comprehensive plan. This article compares structures and processes of state growth management programs in Florida. Twentieth century land use planning: A stalwart family tree. Innes provides an appendix to the chapter that gives the names and dates of state legislation and summarizes state. consists of a fiscal impact study of the capital costs for different types of development patterns. Maine. and Hawaii’s program was the first major example of a land classification approach incorporated into a state growth management system. including the negotiation of compliance agreements between the state and individual local governments. the partial restoration of the program in 1992. and the system has not dealt very well with problems that cross municipal boundaries. Kanarek. 1995. Preferences for state and regional planning efforts among California cess. and perspectives about the future of the state’s growth management effort. the state review of local comprehensive plans. . 1993.sagepub. The search for efficient urban growth patterns: A study of the fiscal impacts of development in Florida. 134. The author finds that New Jersey’s collaborative process shows that a well-designed process can accomplish key tasks. 135. Group processes and the social construction of growth management: Florida. 21) but notes differences in political cultures. Newbury Park. Edward J. but Florida’s and Vermont’s approaches hindered implementation in certain ways. The study is based on case studies of existing developed areas. and the politics of local plan adoption. there were 2. prepared for the Governor’s Task Force on Urban Growth Patterns. The authors describe the different types of local land use plans that have evolved over time in planning practice. Maine. land classification. Journal of the American Planning Association 58. Maryland. Godschalk. This work. quasi-judicial approach. Innes. Journal of the American Planning Association 61. regional. New Jersey. 1991. and policy emphases. and Walls. OR: Joint Legislative Committee on Land Use. Vermont. As of 1994. a few local plans were deemed by OCP to be internally consistent as originally written. The author finds a “remarkable degree of similarity” in their broad outlines of approaches (p. The 1992 statutory framework for comprehensive planning is now voluntary rather than mandatory. but communities that choose to plan must use the 1988 law’s prescribed format.

The author argues that Hawaii’s program has exhibited far greater control over development than found in any other state and that Oregon has been more effective than most states in determining the shape of metropolitan areas. Washington. The article briefly describes mandatory planning and growth management in the states of Oregon. there are exception areas and secondary lands lying outside of urban growth boundaries that result in piecemeal rural growth and in urban areas.) and not to “lifestyle” functions such as land use. Kasowski. Chicago: American Planning Association. will represent “a far more interesting example for the rest of the nation than any of the existing ones” (p. then list and describe growth management techniques employed in the rural towns. 2: 181-91. Eric Damian. 144. the cost and availability of public services. Leslie. The authors review the literature of growth management with an emphasis on rural areas. DeGrove. This book is one of the more important works on growth management to be published in the 1990s. “Both states have a rich tradition of community concern as well as an elaborate supporting structure of state and regional planning” (p. DC: International City Management Association. water. 6). Local responses to rapid rural growth: New York and Vermont cases. After a thorough literature review. He also discusses sidebars on economic development through land use planning in Oregon and rule requirements for economic development elements of comprehensive plans in Georgia. California. 480/481. John M. Separate chapters investigate growth management and its relationship to urban form. 1994. may be good ideas. Kelly notes that Delaware has adopted a law mandating local comprehensive planning (the Quality of Life Act of 1988) but that it contains no state review of local comprehensive plans. In addition to the success of urban growth boundaries. He describes the philosophical and theoretical examinations of the land use-transportation relationship. 2013 . performance standards. Vermont’s Governor Madeleine Kunin devoted her entire “state of the state” speech in 1988 to the issue of managing growth. Washington (the Growth Management Acts of 1990 and 1991). New York: Praeger. and housing opportunities. 4). State laws on growth management.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 mayors and city planning directors. if successful. However. Gerrit J. 2.sagepub. and are difficult to justify. The authors provide an analysis of descriptive case studies of rural growth management in towns in northern New York and Vermont. 1998a. and Florida. 142. 140. Journal of the American Planning Association 55. Oregon: Fifteen years of land use planning. 2: 128-45. The author concludes that the outlook for Oregon’s planning program is positive. 1993. 189). growth concerns. However. and the NIMBY (not in my backyard) syndrome are mounting. The authors argue that the combination of the structure of state planning statutes and negative perceptions about regional government creates support for state planning intervention. . and Glenn Harris. Managing community growth: Policies. and Oregon (Senate Bill 100). Journal of Planning Education and Research 16. 141. Kelly. an “untold success story” (p. Journal of Planning Literature 9. They conclude that rural planning boards are active. Kelly concludes that the literature fails to provide practical advice on how planners can make transportation decisions and land use decisions work together. Kelly describes growth management enabling legislation in Colorado and New Hampshire. Vol. techniques and impacts. Land Use Law and Zoning Digest 41. Important court cases that address the constitutionality of growth management are also cited. 143. “a state not widely known for government regulation. Kelly concludes with his assessment of which growth management programs are good ideas. 1989. the two have remained separate decision-making processes. He also finds that Nevada. Knaap. The transportation land-use link. The Vermont towns include those operating in the context of Act 250 and some operating with little state guidance. He contends that Georgia’s new planning act (1989). and development effects on public facilities. 1989. such support for state intervention extends in California only to infrastructure planning (transportation. 1991. . In Modernizing state planning statutes: The Growing Smart working papers. ed. 145. the natural environment. In Balanced growth: A planning guide for local government. Florida (the Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 and the 1985 Growth Management Act). Knaap provides an overview of federal economic development programs. 10: 3-8. Planning Advisory Service Report no. Toward model statutes for the economic development element of a comprehensive plan. Downloaded from jpl. The author examines the relationship between land use planning and transportation planning. and Maryland (the Governor’s Commis- 303 sion on Growth in the Chesapeake Bay Region in 1991). King. 126) is the Oregon planning program’s role in providing affordable housing. Historically. and flexible in their responses to growth pressures. A chapter on statewide efforts to manage growth includes descriptions of legislation in Hawaii (the Land Use Law of 1961). includes in its zoning enabling legislation a mandatory carrying capacity approach” (p. The author cites examples of Oregon’s success in managing growth. The author describes six types of programs that fall under the loose definition of growth management. Kelly describes early and contemporary growth management regulations and nonregulatory growth management techniques. Other state growth management programs briefly noted include Georgia (the Planning Act of 1989). Kevin. Vermont (Act 250 of 1970 and Act 200 of 1988). Programs devoted to protecting special lands are also briefly described. 2: 93-102. etc. finding that these two states emphasize carrying capacity. The author outlines model requirements for an economic development element of a local comprehensive plan.com by guest on January 31. innovative.

multifamily housing. 1: 92-97. Laitin. Rhode Island.304 Journal of Planning Literature the program affects the four issues. MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. urban services planning. and local implementation comprise the fundamental ingredients of Oregon’s land use program. Wesley Woolf. and guidebooks from the states of Florida. Robert Klant. 151. and Sy Adler. and low-income residents support Oregon’s program. Using the results of a 1982 referendum to repeal Oregon’s land use program. The regulated landscape: Lessons on state land use planning from Oregon.sagepub. Oregon. Richard W. That is. 1988. Maine. 2013 . rules. A coalition of urbanites in the Willamette Valley. Vol. urban growth boundaries. 147. Hepburn. Oregon has provided the conditions necessary for inclusionary housing policies to develop at the local and state levels. and they draw on their economic theory-based dissertations in describing selected aspects of Oregon’s land use planning program. 1990. non-resource-based employers. State Land use planning and inclusionary zoning: Evidence from Oregon. the success of Oregon’s approach remains uncertain. Journal of Planning Education and Research 10. Journal of the American Planning Association 53.g. 1998b. and Florida and mentions “vital areas” legislation in Vermont (the Green Mountains). Kundell. he examines whose economic interests are served by state growth management programs. Toward model statutes for the land-use element: An assessment of current requirements and practice. the promotion of economic development through land use planning. Heikoff. Knaap. a structure for state and local planning. the Florida Keys). . and certain legislators tried but failed to pass a Vital Areas Act of 1974. He illustrates and describes a stage model of the politics of land use in Oregon and finds that politics vary depending on the particular stage of the process. A Vital Areas Council was established in Georgia in 1974. 150.. Voter support for Oregon’s land use program does not follow broad distinctions of social class but instead follows popular perceptions about how Downloaded from jpl. Oregon’s land use program fosters a limited form of inclusionary zoning by increasing the amount of land zoned for high-density. economic development. 1994. They note that evaluation of the program would be facilitated by a state requirement to computerize land use maps. the statewide land use program subsumes four issues: home rule. including Tennessee’s regional commissions that control subdivisions in unincorporated areas and develop regional zoning plans for counties. including New York (the Adirondack Park). “Oregon offers an evolutionary model of land use policy change” (p. farmland protection. Jon. 152. The authors also note state programs that are targeted at protecting significant portions of their states. and New York. Georgia’s legislators considered but failed to pass a Critical Areas Act of 1973. 149. Massachusetts. The land use element no longer dominates. 1989. 1992. Cambridge. Maine. and statewide planning and land use politics. Carl Abbott. Minnesota. . However. and housing. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. Rhode Island. . but it remains a fundamental part of local comprehensive plans. The author highlights selected local responses to Maine’s 1988 comprehensive planning act. and Washington and assesses the prototype land use element. 1987. Planning Advisory Service Report no. Nelson. The author suggests there has been a resurgence of the quiet revolution as additional states have adopted growth management programs. housing. Down east drama. Chicago: American Planning Association. Georgia. Deborah Howe. The authors also observe that urban growth boundaries “leak” and that meeting the goal of affordable housing will require greater market interventions. 1: 39-46. Athens: Carl Vinson Institute of Government. In Modernizing state planning statutes: The Growing Smart working papers. There is movement toward greater state and local cooperation in Oregon.com by guest on January 31. and S. eds. Growth pressures in ru- 146. Multiple statewide planning goals. Campbell. the author finds that the prevailing notion that statewide land use programs serve exclusively upper-class interests cannot be confirmed. Through state review of local comprehensive plans. Joseph M. The author concludes that given a lack of financial incentives or requirements to provide affordable housing. and Arthur C. Delaware imposes a ban on new heavy industry from portions of its coastal zone. California and North Carolina (coastal zones). 4). Gerrit. Chapters address program history. Land use politics in Oregon. The authors also describe substate regional programs. . renters. University of Georgia. Planning (August): 21-24. This is one of the more widely read and important additions to the state growth management literature of the 1990s. Lawrence R. Both of the authors completed their doctoral research at Oregon universities. Florida (e. 2. yet little empirical evidence exists on the substantive issues of centralized land use control. He offers a prototype local land use element based on statutes. The author analyzes conflict and politics in the process of adopting Oregon’s planning program and acknowledging and implementing local land use plans. In Oregon.. The author provides a market economic perspective on local land use planning. Chapter 6 summarizes comprehensive state land use management programs in Hawaii. The author provides a political economist’s view of statewide land use controls. Oregon. Land-use policy and the protection of Georgia’s environment. Self-interest and voter support for Oregon’s land use controls. noting its merits and limitations. This work is also based on a thorough review of literature on Oregon’s land use program. and New Jersey (the Pine Barrens). James E. urban growth management. The authors conclude with lessons on statewide land use planning. Maryland. 480/481. 148. This book was in press at the time Georgia adopted its 1989 planning act. In Planning the Oregon way: A twenty year evaluation.

He argues that orderly sprawl may be acceptable to moderates. followed by Oregon in 1969 and 1973. Lawlor also describes the work of the Cape Cod Commission (1990) and Martha’s Vineyard Commission (1974) in Massachusetts. However. The authors seek to “initiate a discussion” of the political feasibility of regional growth management using Oregon. 1946-1988. The author presents an economist’s critique of Oregon’s state land use program. Agriculture. The basis for ideas encompassed in the state plan is “sustainable development. especially the Portland region. 12 (December): 10-14. Lawlor. was released in 1989 after more than two years of effort. twenty-eight of forty municipalities have submitted their comprehensive plans for review. which takes an active role. 1998. 1989). Plans must be consistent with ten state land use goals. Planning to grow in New Jersey: An update on the State Development and Redevelopment Plan. interest in containing sprawl has surfaced in Maryland. New Jersey. Washington. The authors also describe the economic. Ashland. Is urban sprawl back on the political agenda? Urban Affairs Review 34. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press. Regional growth management regime: The case of Portland. 1994. legislation to implement the commission’s recommendation has not yet appeared. James. Minnesota. The regional growth management regime in Portland includes the state government. 1997. 2: 179-211. 157. and only one-quarter of the cities and towns have some form of zoning or site plan review. States such as Virginia. He finds that Oregon’s land use law has not achieved its objectives. business interests. Leeman. Massachusetts. and environmental-impact study applied to the state plan by the Rutgers Center for Urban Policy Research. 185).CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 ral Maine led the state in 1988 to pass legislation requiring every city and town in the state to develop a comprehensive plan by 1996. and New York are considering new legislation to manage growth at the state level. including the Growth Management Act of 1985. and Vermont. Lussenhop. Vermont. Planning 58. Journal of Urban Affairs 20. greenbelt. county. the author considers the sources of support that have developed for growth management in the Portland. Leeman expresses amazement that two decades could pass without an economic analysis of Oregon’s land use law and the land use regulations that followed. and Rhode Island (the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Act of 1988). 1998. A preliminary plan. Colorado. The process of writing New Jersey’s State Development and Redevelopment Act took three years. Communities of Place. and other efforts to encourage regional growth management are under way in Michigan and South Carolina. This article describes Oregon politics and various aspects of growth management. 153. with Mary Ann Beavis. Andrew Carver. The author contends that the “new age” of land use planning began in Hawaii in 1961.sagepub. OR: Millwright. Wayne. North Carolina. Maine. Oregon land. The law requires state review—but not approval—of local comprehensive plans. or a classification of areas in the state according to the extent of their urbanization. and Maryland. 154. as a case study. State of the statutes. Georgia. The author considers five models of land use: historical sprawl. Environmental and Urban Issues 22. In 1978. The state office of comprehensive planning indicates that about half of Maine’s nearly five hundred cities and towns have comprehensive plans but many are outdated. it has not prevented sprawl and has saved little farm and forest lands. Oregon region. States are taking a second or third look at their planning enabling laws. but only about half of the states require local comprehensive planning. Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta. The plan included the now well-known geographical tier system. and the establishment of the Commission for a Sustainable South Florida in 1995 as parallel efforts in that state to control sprawl. Barbara L. the Growth Management Act of 1993. In addition. Leo. Leo. The act created a State Planning Commission and an Office of State Planning.” The author favors more decision making at the local level but acknowledges that a regional planning body should make some decisions. Oregon. and it recommended a statewide land use management process. Pennsylvania. Downloaded from jpl. cross acceptance. flexible urban growth boundaries. 1992. Passage of the act was preceded by a legislative commission on land conservation appointed in 1987 by Governor John McKernan. Both Washington State and New Jersey have adopted regional growth management strategies similar to those in Oregon. 1: 5-15. Other states since then that have adopted legislation that substantially revises their state planning and zoning acts include New Jersey. It also established the most unique feature of New Jersey’s program. Within the context of regime theory (see Clarence N. In Rhode Island. 4: 363-94. Georgia. They cite Florida’s efforts. including Senate Bill 10 (1969) and Senate Bill 100 (1973). and environmentalists are part of the coalition supporting growth management. The author discusses state planning statute reform in Florida. fiscal. Most states authorize localities to plan. and Janet D. Christopher. A special commission in Massachusetts was established in 1990. which is the complex process of negotiating consistency among city.. Pennsylvania. Stone.” 155. Christopher. “The appearance of businesspeople among the ranks of sprawl opponents is the most striking of a number of changes that are now under way” (p. One of the chapters is titled “The Heavy Hand of the State. and Robyne Turner. rural or urban? The struggle for control. Lawrence.com by guest on January 31. The author concludes with a brief description of the newly established Growing Smart Program sponsored by the American Planning Association. Rhode Island passed a law that requires local comprehensive plans and provides for a state monitoring role. 156. rigidly fixed urban growth boundaries. This article includes generalized interpretations of official maps from the first state plan dis- 305 playing planning areas and centers. and orderly sprawl. and state plans. 2013 . A.

including urbanization. The author finds that Oregon’s land use program still has not been fully implemented because all local governments have not completed comprehensive plans that have been acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. The three general types of consistency are vertical. South Carolina Coast Council. taxation. but it describes existing forms of land use regulation in New Jersey and in its recommendations suggests how to tailor general criteria to that state. separate. In Modernizing state planning statutes: The Growing Smart working papers. and Washington. Levin. and speculates about the future of the planning program. The authors describe techniques for controlling land use through police powers. Maryland. Heath. and transfer of development rights. Implementing the consistency doctrine. describes the politics of local planning. He also highlights involvement in the program by 1000 Friends of Oregon and attributes shortcomings of the state land use program to a continuing lack of a political consensus. Liberty. Slavet. The consistency doctrine (see DiMento 1980 in this bibliography) emerged during the past two decades as a remedy for the abuses of local zoning practice. 161. Melvin R. This working paper examines ways to make the consistency doctrine an effective part of state growth management programs. 462/463. 7 (July): 9-16. The author also briefly notes the work of the Environmental Land Management Study Committee III in Florida. The state of Washington’s growth management program borrowed urban growth boundaries from Oregon. 160. then further analyzes the consistency doctrine as it relates to plans and plan policies. Georgia. Virginia (Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act of 1988). including interim development restrictions during land use preparation. Planning 58.306 Journal of Planning Literature have adopted statewide growth management laws and seven additional states that are considering new legislation. eminent domain. Rhode Island. He concludes with recommendations for other states. Washington. The book applies generally. Managing Oregon’s growth: The politics of development planning. Vermont. Lucas vs. economic development. 1992. This is a frequently cited work on Oregon’s land use program. Jeffrey H. C. 1996. Robert L. 1974. executive director of 1000 Friends of Oregon. land use bills” (p. 159. Chicago: American Planning Association. The state’s growth management system has been met with opposition by property owners. New approaches to state land-use policies. 1996. “By the beginning of April we [1000 Friends] were opposing fiftyseven. 3: 1-14. bad. and growth management study efforts such as the National Growth Management Leadership Project sponsored by 1000 Friends of Oregon and the Growing Smart Program of the American Planning Association. provides separate chapters on protecting rural lands and managing urban growth. and experiences of Oregon’s land use program. Hello. indicative. Robert. Leonard. DC: Conservation Foundation. concurrency from Florida. 158. The author reviews the legal and administrative structure of Oregon’s program. The author describes and evaluates specific aspects of the land use program. MA: D. 1992. 1983. The author describes the successes.sagepub. Oregon. Rose. including seven that 1000 Friends had requested be vetoed. Goodbye. some of whom face devastation. and preservation of farm and forest lands. . It is probably the most detailed account of the state’s growth management program adoption and implementation in Oregon (see also DeGrove 1984). By late July. A number of unique. Lincoln. Governor John Kitzhaber had vetoed fifty-two bills. Yakima and Isle of Palms.S. The author describes key elements of Washington State’s growth management program. The article also discusses the U. Sylvia. whereas others get windfalls. The author argues that Oregon’s LUBA should be considered a model land use court and that Oregon’s land use program must maintain political support and continue to be monitored by 1000 Friends of Oregon. Oregon’s statewide planning goals are appended. Oregon’s comprehensive growth management program: An implementation review and lessons for other states. 2013 . including those actions before the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Lewis. The paper concludes with an analysis of the pros and cons of various remedies for inconsistent plans and development regulations. some planners are finding there is not enough money available to get the job done. and Joseph S. Environmental Law Reporter 22: 10367-91. important observations are made about land use processes. and precatory. frustrations. In addition to unrealistic deadlines set by the act. 163. Ramapo.S. Liberty. and internal. The author describes the meanings of the terms consistent and inconsistent. The battle over Tom McCall’s legacy: The story of land use in the 1995 Oregon legislature. 9). New Jersey. Environmental and Urban Issues 23. Plan policies can be classified as directive.com by guest on January 31. Nine state growth management programs are identified in the article: Florida. horizontal. and the notion of flexibility from Georgia. They suggest how to allocate governmental responsibility for land development control. Vol. The book provides an overview of Oregon’s land use planning program. The authors conclude that it is possible to recruit the support of builders and developers for regional growth management. The article contains a map showing ten U. Jerome G. states that Downloaded from jpl. 1. The author describes regulatory consistency or the notion that development regulations must implement local comprehensive plans. housing. 162. Planning Advisory Service report no. Some planners criticize the system because the program has set overly tight deadlines for compliance with its mandates. describes how the state’s land use watchdog organization successfully implemented strategies to overcome assaults on land use in the 1995 Oregon legislative session.. Supreme Court decision. Lexington.

The panel highlights three state programs: California. The authors provide program evaluations of the Adirondack Park Agency’s regulatory and local planning assistance programs.. Public Administration Review 54. Little begins with a discussion of Senate Bill 10 (1969) as an antecedent to Senate Bill 100 and then describes the particular challenges of preparing and passing the state’s land use acts in 1972 and 1973. 1981. even before the Standard Zoning Enabling Act was completed. The effect of the Growth Management Act on local comprehensive planning expenditures: The south Florida experience. He describes court cases relevant to Oregon’s planning program. Dicker. A dozen or so states have some type of computerized land inventory system. Little’s account contains two parts: a chronicle of the passage of Senate Bill 100 in 1973 and an “excursus” describing the landscape of the state. 1974b in this bibliography). This is one of at least three separate reports published by the Conservation Foundation on the adoption of state land use programs during the quiet revolution (see also Myers 1974a. Mandelker. Mandatory comprehensive planning: Perspective from three states. which is reproduced in the article. Daniel R. Beatty briefly discusses the California Coastal Act of 1976. 15).. 1994. Robert A. 170. Liou.. Chicago: American Planning Association. Land Use Law and Zoning Digest 30. The author takes issue with Popper’s (1988) analysis of the quiet revolution in land use controls. 307 This work is probably the most detailed account of New Jersey’s state planning program that has been published. They find that state planning is diverse and marked by considerable variation. Little. Kane describes Florida’s Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975. Journal of the American Planning Association 45. Patrick Kane. 3: 239-44. 5: 3-8. and post-1985). DC: Conservation Foundation. The researchers evaluate the fiscal effect of the Florida Omnibus Growth Management Act of 1985 on local government expenditures to conduct comprehensive planning in southern Florida. Protecting open space: Land use control in the Adirondack Park. 1979. 1975 to 1985. T. arguing that Popper ignored some of the failures that have occurred along with the successes. Luberoff. They employ a quasi-experimental time-series research design and use per capita comprehensive planning expenditures as a measure to show that cities are spending considerably more funds to comply with the comprehensive planning mandates. K. They conclude that small cities have witnessed a strong upward trend in expenditures during the post-1985 period. The new Oregon trail: An account of the development and passage of state land-use legislation in Oregon. Washington. Two issues that stalled passage and that were basically excised from the bill adopted by the legislature were the provisions for substate regional planning and areas of critical state concern. State land use planning: The current status and demographic rationale.. 23). Richard A. 1974. The authors identify critical issues involved in substantive state land use planning and survey the status of planning in the fifty states. 168. 2013 . and Oregon. In Downloaded from jpl. Cambridge. and Gordon G. 1978. He notes that the State Office of Planning and Research has determined that approximately 60 percent of the local governments in California have adopted a general plan. This book describes the implementation of regional planning and land use regulation in the Adirondack Park in upstate New York. 1981. This article presents a panel discussion that took place in 1977 on mandatory comprehensive planning. “Interestingly. MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 1: 48-61. The remaining local governments have had difficulty complying with the state planning mandate. ed. growth strategy (efficient utilization of land resources) was thought to be a growing concern in eighteen states” (p. The authors explain Florida’s growth management history in three periods (pre-1975.sagepub. The first draft of Senate Bill 100 was a “tough. They developed and used a survey questionnaire. State planning in New Jersey. David. and Mike Miles. He argues there are problems with existing classifications of state planning efforts and that a more careful analysis of the results of regulatory systems is needed. Mandelker. Sullivan finds that Oregon adopted zoning enabling legislation for cities in 1919. the political geography as it relates to the passage of Senate Bill 100. Edith Netter. 51). Reprinted in Land use law: Issues for the eighties. and an interview with Governor Tom McCall. Cross acceptance was “perceived by many planning advocates as the most important feature of the state planning process” (p.com by guest on January 31. it focuses on the political process and identifies supporters and opponents of the program. uncompromising bill” that “managed to gore nearly everyone’s ox. Davis. 1993. Florida.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 164. Liroff. Luberoff provides a chronology of the state’s growth management program during a period that ranges from the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Mt. Cambridge. Charles E. Mann. Ed Sullivan. 167. 1989. Laurel II decision in 1993 to completion of cross-acceptance negotiations and initial stages of drafting an interim state plan in 1991. MA: Ballinger. Journal of the American Planning Association 55. indicates there are about twelve states that mandate local comprehensive planning. Beatty describes California’s requirements that each city and county adopt a general plan. The quiet revolution—success and failure. Daniel R. 2: 204-5. As with other working papers on state growth management published by the Lincoln Institute. 169. 165. and David Beatty. 166. the moderator for the session. This working paper is one of at least three published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in the early 1990s on state growth management programs (see also Howitt 1993 and Wallis 1993 in this bibliography on programs in Maine and Florida). the state took the position that a land use map was not required by this legislation. Mandelker. or so it seemed” (p. and Todd J.

The author’s classification of factors that potentially influence implementation efforts (e. cooperative intergovernmental policy designs seek to enhance local implementation through financial and technical assistance. Procedural compliance is much greater in Florida. and funding. The authors find that cooperative approaches may allow local governments to ignore procedural prescriptions. Building on earlier work (May 1993 in this bibliography). concurrency. and improving coordination for better transportation systems. 1994.. Thirty-five states have considered or begun to implement a “one stop permit process” for various permits required by the state. stimulates more effective implementation of intergovernmental programs. This article begins with an overview of Florida’s new rule for preparing the intergovernmental coordination elements of local comprehensive plans. a package of four bills was passed in 1972 by the Florida Legislature: the Environmental Land and Water Management Act. The author describes ways in which various features of state mandates facilitate state agency implementation actions. but they are used for planning purposes only. Australia’s cooperative hazard mitigation mandate are two case studies with striking contrasts in intergovernmental policy mandates. Mazmanian. The seventh annual growth management conference—Intergovernmental coordination: Still the weak link in growth management? Environmental and Urban Issues 21. The author focuses on two aspects of mandate design: prescription and controls. Peter J. 211). 2013 . 172. 174. 1994. using hazard-prone area management as the topical focus. the Water Resources Act. The state statutes analyzed in this study include California’s planning law and coastal act. Implementation and public policy. the article provides Pivo’s remarks about the intergovernmental coordination process under way in Washington State. . 1983. It includes a lengthy chapter devoted to coastal land use regulation in California (chapter 7). 4: 634-63. The author presents empirical analyses of state-level land use and development management mandates enacted by California. raises questions about the quality of the plans receiving state approval” (p. May. 3: 1-9. 2: 171-201. Mandate design and implementation: Enhancing implementation efforts and shaping regulatory styles. Analyzing mandate design: State mandates governing hazard-prone areas. the author conceptualizes the notion of mandate design. rather than strict application of specific standards. Alaska and Maryland have statewide land classification systems. Florida’s not-so-quiet revolution. However. This book is well-known and frequently cited in the policy analysis literature. Coercive versus cooperative policies: Comparing intergovernmental mandate performance. The authors seek to determine whether these two different types of policy approaches lead to differences in the extent of the local government implementation of hazard programs. Chicago: American Planning Association. He then presents empirical results (e. mandate-facilitating features. Next. Florida. Reprinted in The best of Planning: Two decades of articles from the magazine of the American Planning Association.. the cooperative approach used in New South Wales may produce more carefully considered local policies. Matthews. California’s coastal land use regulation program is “one of the few cases which comes reasonably close to meeting our hypothesized six conditions of effective implementation” (p. state land classification exists and is legally enforceable. The authors characterize the California Coastal Commissions as an example of effective implementation effort. Florida’s coercive planning mandate of 1985 and the state of New South Wales. 1996. and mandate characteristics) is an important addition to the analysis of state growth management programs. 1989. North Carolina’s Coastal Area Management Act. 171.sagepub. Lanham. mandate controls. and the Comprehensive Planning Act. 1993. 173. Ed. J. Furthermore. but “Florida’s frequent reliance on negotiation.308 Journal of Planning Literature than legalistic regulatory styles. The remainder of the article describes the results of four separate panel discussions at Florida’s annual growth management conference. Texas. and in Connecticut land classification is being completed and will be legally enforceable. and Maine).com by guest on January 31.. and Raymond J. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 24: 1-16.. the Land Conservation Act. In the long run. 175. 219).g. and a coherent statute is not necessarily required as a condition for strong implementation efforts. 1974.g. and Paul A. however. see May 1993).. M. withering away the Development of Regional Impact review process. mandate coercion scores) for nineteen mandates in five states (for a description of these mandates. Florida’s Environmental Land and Water Management Act and Growth Management Act. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15. These panel discussions address resolving intergovernmental conflicts and maximizing intercommunity partnerships. Schneider. Hawaii. May. and Martin A. Burby. The author provides three major conclusions: implementation efforts are more easily influenced than regulatory styles. educational facilities. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 12. Managing growth is no longer a quiet topic in Florida. McCahill. Daniel A. 184). coercion or cooperation. This article provides a new context for understanding state growth management programs—the empirical analysis of state mandate design. More attention needs to be given to how mandate features structure and facilitate intergovernmental regulation. Sabatier. The authors describe the debate about which regulatory style. The author draws lessons from program experiences thus three states (Delaware. and Washington’s Shorelines Management Act and State Environmental Policy Act. and Washington. Peter J. North Carolina. Coercive mandate designs emphasize monitoring and penalties. 176. The coercive approach has advantages. MD: University Press of America. conciliatory styles are more difficult to establish Downloaded from jpl. “No one gave a tinker’s damn about growth in Florida until 1971” (p.

Planning in Vermont.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 far and describes challenges on the part of local planners to meet the new mandates. CO: National Conference of State Legislatures. Planning Advisory Service Report no. and powers of Regional Planning Commissions. including the year the acts were adopted. Model planning and zoning enabling legislation: A short history. McDowell. The Regional Planning Councils have made progress toward implementing the state comprehensive plan. Massachusetts. The authors describe the problems identified during the 1970s and 1980s and solutions to those problems recommended by the Governor’s Commission on Vermont’s Future. Chicago: American Bar Association. Jr. Meeks. Maine’s industrial site location statute (1970). They note that confusion regarding Act 200 surfaced immediately after its passage. The author provides a status report on the implementation of the requirements to prepare state and local comprehensive plans under the 1985 Growth Management Act. Nevertheless. Meck outlines the history of enabling legislation for planning and zoning in the United States. Irving Hand. State and regional planning are quite prevalent now but did not fully develop into significant efforts until the 1960s.g. A section of this chapter describes the quiet revolution in land use control. this work provides a comparison of state growth management and comprehensive land use planning acts in nine states. eds. Nine states are identified as having state growth management programs (Florida. while a total of twenty-six states had either statewide land use planning and control or similar controls applying only in the coastal zones or only to areas of critical state concern” (p. except by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in its oversight of the comprehensive plan programs” (p. S. Merten. He describes the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act and the Standard City Planning Enabling Act. and Robert I. Chicago: American Planning Association. Do statewide planning and the consistency concept infringe on home rule authority? Journal of Planning Literature 11. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45. Gordon. The author also describes the Model Land Development Code and lesser known models for state land use reform.. McKay. Frank S. and Washington). and Bruce D. 2013 . The article contains a list of individual local governments and each government’s status. They outline the provisions of Act 200. Vermont’s Growth Management Act of 1988 (Act 200) strengthened the regional planning process and gave municipalities veto power over regional plans. Oregon’s Land Conservation and Development Act (Senate Bill 100) has been used as a model by many states. Vol. 177. Providing the lead article in this collection of working papers. various characteristics of the acts. Patricia. 1990a. but some of these had not met minimum requirements. Critical-area programs exist in California. McDowell. North Carolina. 1986. As of August 1991. The evolution of American planning. Vermont. including the planning process and goals. 1993. 6: 600-604. There is little evidence that the state comprehensive plan has been “actively used in any meaningful way. eds. 1996. Oregon. The author provides a succinct comparison of programs in the nine growth management states. Stuart. However. The planning law has its opponents. Vermont passed its State Land Use and Development Bill (Act 250) in 1970. and Virginia. Patrick E. then highlights criticisms of these model acts. The author argues that there have been two separate waves of activist legislating by states in the area of growth management. Chicago: American Planning Association. In Modernizing state planning statutes: The Growing Smart working papers. 1997. Smith. Bruce D. So. and an inventory of the goals established by the statutes. The author examines the extent to which statewide planning programs (e. Buchsbaum and Larry J. Goetz. Environmental and Urban Issues 19. 1991. Florida. New York. and Vermont’s state controls (1970). and there continues to be healthy debate about the law’s provisions. 1990b. 181. New Jersey. The author concludes with issues to be resolved in terms of local comprehensive planning. Regional Planning Commissions have been authorized in Vermont since the mid-1960s. Georgia. 50). Rhode Island. In The practice of state and regional planning. . Virginia. 178. requirements for municipal plans. Similarly. 1. State land conservation and growth management policy: A legislator’s guide. which provided a process where certain land developments and subdivisions were required to be reviewed by Regional Environmental Review Commissions that were created by the state. Nevada. Washington and Georgia) infringe on Downloaded from jpl. all 459 local governments had submitted comprehensive plans to DCA for review. Pennsylvania. In State and regional comprehensive planning: Implementing new methods for growth management. Meck. Maryland. Thomas R. New Jersey. 1: 1-7. Maryland. 2). agency functional plans have not been used much in program development. 309 180. Growth management: A renewed agenda for the states. Peter A. every state had some type of land use controls. Melloni. 1991: Where are we? A status report on growth management plans in Florida. though most relied on permits. He elaborates on programs in New Jersey and Georgia and calls for more study of the effectiveness of state land use programs. 183. Another seven states have growth strategies’ commissions or have held conferences with the intent to develop growth management legislation (California. Maine.sagepub. Washington. This work is not available to the author. New York. 4: 564-73. The programs mentioned by the author include Hawaii’s statewide zoning (1961). eight states had much broader statewide land use control programs.com by guest on January 31.. Denver. 182. Federal studies by the National Commission on Urban Problems and the Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing are also described. Massachusetts’ wetlands protection law (mid-1960s). Wisconsin’s shoreline protection act (1966). and West Virginia). 462/463. “By the mid-1970s. Hawaii. 179.

Chicago: American Planning Association. The authors then examine the effect of Oregon’s land use program on housing. Einsweiler. then provides an overview of statewide planning and the consistency doctrine. Oregon. 4: 157-73. Terry D. 1995. They describe the difficult political process of drawing urban growth boundaries (UGBs) and argue that the development patterns in the Medford area reveal good news and bad news. . Land Use Law and Zoning Digest 47. Vermont. including coastal management legislation such as Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act of 1971 and California’s Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972. Nearly three-quarters of the new lots created in the area were located inside the UGB. This book contains a status report on state activity related to land use management in the states as of 1975. Massachusetts. and Robert C. Ten states had critical-area programs (Colorado. eds. 184. 2013 . He concludes that in the end. Elaine. 1996. those necessarily or fairly implied therefrom. Colorado. The authors recommend that the Land Conservation and Development Commission establish procedures for evaluating how well local comprehensive plans comply with the state’s housing goal and that Oregon’s courts should supplement the state’s housing principles with appropriate interpretations. 572) and that municipalities will be unable to hinder the adoption of statewide planning. The author notes that “Florida is the only state to adopt major portions of the ALI code. passage. Hawaii. Merten also discusses the theory of home rule. Lessons for effective urban containment and resource land preservation policy. requiring developers of lowdensity development outside the UGB or in urbanizable areas to “shadow plat” the properties to show how they can attain urban densities. 186. and Wyoming (1975). He describes the well-known Dillon’s Rule. Cambridge. Wyoming formed a Conservation and Land Use Study Commission in 1973 and then created a state Land Use Commission. 1. The chapter on state land use controls also highlights statewide land use programs in Hawaii. Maryland. North Carolina. and Vermont are considered by the author to be “bottom-up” states. Nelson. Chicago: American Bar Association. 2. Maine. 188. including the Article VII on DRIs” (p. but the state legislature has responded in a Downloaded from jpl. Regulating regional impacts: Toward model legislation. the formation of a low-density residential ring around the UGB. which stated that “municipal corporations have and can exercise only those powers expressly granted. Moore. 1992. This article is a prepublication of the Morris work (1996) abstracted above. which will hinder urban expansion. Stuhler. ed. In Modernizing state planning statutes: The Growing Smart working papers. Oregon. 1974a. Georgia. and John W. and Arthur C. Oregon metropolitan statistical area. 1977. Maine. Florida. Bibliography of academic and professional literature on growth and growth management. Deborah A.310 Journal of Planning Literature piecemeal fashion. This is a detailed bibliography with broad coverage of growth management topics. Maryland. Slow start in paradise: An account of the development.com by guest on January 31. The authors analyze empirical data from a case study of urban growth patterns in the Medford. Robert H. Nevada. Morris.. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 120. The author begins with a discussion of Connecticut’s early legislative proposal (1966) and an overview of the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) program of the American Law Institute’s (ALI) Model Land Development Code. The author traces the evolution of the Development of Regional Impact concept and its implementation in several states. and Wyoming). Managing community growth and change. and Oregon are considered “top-down” or mandate-based states. New York: Dial Press/James Wade. The book also contains a chapter that highlights innovative regional programs such as the Adirondack Park Agency and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Washington. Land use controls in the United States: A handbook on the legal rights of citizens. Marya. Myers. Moss. Maine’s Site Location Act. and the development of singlefamily subdivisions in multifamily zones. This work provides an overview of Oregon’s statewide planning goals and the roles of the state’s Land Conservation and Development Department and Commission. New Jersey. Florida. Freilich and Eric O. Florida. The authors find that New Jersey’s Mt. Phyllis. 187. Vol. Approaches to regulating regional impacts. The authors note other potential problems with residential development in the case study area. Terry. Several notable functional state statutes are highlighted. Rhode Island. 1981. Minnesota. 7: 3-9. 5). Vermont. and implementation of state land-use local land use and home rule authority. MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. whereas Georgia. She highlights DRI programs in Florida and Vermont. Oregon has witnessed sharp increases in housing prices. The author’s recommendations for better growth management include designating urban reserves. Florida. Laurel decision has been applied administratively in Oregon with respect to regional fair-share allocations of housing among local governments. Utah. and West Virginia) and nine states have adopted a state land use program of some sort (Colorado. including Florida. and those that are essential and indispensable to their corporate status” (p. 566). Vol. Nevada. North Carolina. 462/463. These include development at densities lower than permitted. Shonkwiler. 189. Oregon. and the Pennsylvania legislature’s attempt to pass regional review legislation also receive brief attention. local governments are and always will be “creatures of the state” (p. Maryland.. and Washington. In The land use awakening: Zoning law in the seventies.sagepub. 185. and establishing minimum densities. Morgan. 190. 1994. but the level of subdivision activity and building outside the UGB on resource lands may be disturbing. Vermont. Miness. Statewide land use planning in Oregon with special emphasis on housing issues. Planning Advisory Service Report no. The Twin Cities’ mediation and dispute resolution mechanism.

Act 250 provided for immediate state regulation of major developments (via eight district commissions and a state environmental board) and mandated adoption of a state land use plan. He identifies New Jersey. approved by the two state legislatures with the consent of the U. and each state is placed within the framework of regional participation. which established two programs recommended by the Model Land Development Code: Areas of Critical State Concern and Developments of Regional Impact. New York. This work tells the story of the passage of Act 250. They develop a typology of five types of regional participation. 195. The State Land Use Plan is embroiled in controversy and bottled up in the natural-resources committee. New Hampshire. and Georgia are included as case studies. on the other hand. The authors contend that actual involvement of regional councils is usually a combination of the five types of participation. The Downloaded from jpl. Florida. has developed a comprehensive land use ordinance and will grant no permits for more subdivisions until at least 85 percent of authorized subdivisions are built.020 per resident for the bailout. . Massachusetts. 194. the author finds that less power was given to the state than recommended by the Model Code. Congress. Myers discusses formation of the Governor’s Commission on Environmental Control in 1969 and describes the Act 250 permit process in detail. DC: Urban Land Institute. “growth management states are paying $3.sagepub. and Mary Dyer. Growth management programs in California. She tells the story of establishing the Big Cypress Swamp as an area of critical state concern. 1992. 1995b.S. . Nathan. established the bistate Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 79). Maine. 1995a. The authors describe the history of concern with the deterioration of the Lake Tahoe basin 311 since 1960. The author describes the conventional judicial process for reviewing zoning decisions and innovations by states that have experimented with alternative forms of land use judicial decision-making processes. review the structure and powers of the bistate and California state agencies. Maryland.. However.com by guest on January 31. So goes Vermont: An account of the development. Oregon. State and Local Government Review 24: 117-27. Vermont. and Oregon as states with innovative judicial processes for land use cases. Growth management and the savings and loan bailout. The author describes the passage of Florida’s Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 (Chapter 380. The Urban Lawyer 27. Techniques in application. Washington. 192. Oregon. Tahoe: The bistate stalemate. Vermont. Frank Schnidman. from strongest (type 1) to weakest (type 5). Vol. She discusses the steps after the passage of Act 250. New Jersey. Florida Laws). including maintenance of a separate state agency until the bistate regional planning agency can be made more effective through changes to the bistate compact. and she also explains how the developments of the regionalimpact program works and the limitations it has faced in its formative years. 1978. 1974b. Arthur C. Myers highlights controversy surrounding passage of the 1972 legislation and finds that implementation has been slow in the first two years. 4.521 per resident” (p.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 legislation in Florida. The authors’ typology of regional involvement is a suggested starting point for further work. The authors conclude with seven lessons from the planning and regulation experience in the Tahoe basin. Georgia. Forster. Jane A Silverman. 191. DC: The Conservation Foundation. including two brief case studies. and Washington. while nongrowth management states are receiving $1. This is one of a continuing series of Conservation Foundation papers devoted to the passage and implementation of state land use programs. 2013 . 193. California also established its own state Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to adopt an equal or higher standard of plans within its jurisdiction. Connecticut. Florida. and outline differences in agency performance. Florida. passage and implementation of state land use legislation in Vermont. DC: Conservation Foundation. and Colorado are excluded from the designation of growth management states. There was more “crossfertilization” of the Vermont approach from the Adirondacks Plan in adjacent upstate New York. Young. Other separate reports were issued on programs in Vermont (Myers 1974b in this bibliography) and Oregon (Little 1974 in this bibliography). Specifically. including consideration by the legislature of the state Land Capability and Development Plan in 1973 and the State Land Use Plan in 1974. Myers notes that Hawaii’s approach was not considered relevant to Vermont because of differences in state government frameworks. The California agency. 2: 251-65. Comparative judicial land-use appeals processes. Growth management states are saddled with the same burden of paying for the savings and loan bailout as are nongrowth management states. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money have been used to finance the savings and loan bailout. The authors maintain that the extent of involvement of regional entities in state growth management programs has important consequences for the effectiveness of growth management policy. Washington. In Management and control of growth. Jr. The author explains why other states such as Minnesota. The author finds that growth management states subsidize nongrowth management states with regard to the national savings and loan bailout. Rhode Island. Hawaii. Harriet. and Phyllis Barusch. The California-Nevada Tahoe Regional Planning Compact of 1969. The bistate agency has apparently violated the intent of the bistate land capability map and the land use plan and disregarded how development affects the natural resources of the basin. Washington. Nelson. Ndubisi. A series of research and legislative efforts led to a bistate compact between California and Nevada to protect the resources and guide the future development of the Lake Tahoe region. 1: 71-85. The ten growth management states included in the study are California. eds. and Rufus C. The role of regional entities in formulating and implementing statewide growth policies. The Urban Lawyer 27. Vermont’s first state land regulation.

John M. He describes how Georgia’s approach to statewide land use planning differs from the “mainstream model” pursued by Florida. the author observes that state land use programs generally evolve through four “epochs” of state interest in land use planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 58. Oregon’s program has been successful in meeting these two principal objectives. and Oregon. Washington. natural and historic resources. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118. Nelson describes the implementation of urban growth boundaries (UGBs) in Oregon. In Planning the Oregon way: A twenty year evaluation.. Deborah Howe.sagepub. He finds that UGBs are the only technique that has had some success in containing urban sprawl. 1992a. An earlier study revealed no substantial differences in farming performance between Oregon and Washington State. 101). 200. eds. states mandate local planning and provide a strong enforcement role (e. In table form. The author finds that there is enough undeveloped land inside UGBs to sustain development into the next century in the state’s major urban areas of Portland.com by guest on January 31. The author briefly describes eleven elements of effective state land use planning. states express concern for certain critical areas of the state and development within these areas (e. He also describes Oregon’s rule that requires all local governments to process land use actions within 120 days of their submittal and Oregon’s Land Use Board of Appeals. Carolina Planning 16. Development inside UGBs has been constructed at lower densities than those indicated in plans and development regulations. making it difficult for future urbanization to occur.g. 1992b. because too little land can cause land price inflation.312 Journal of Planning Literature right-to-farm laws) are effective in preserving prime farmland from urban encroachment.. Based on experience in Oregon. Georgia’s program leaves unanswered questions such as how enforcement will occur if a local government’s zoning actions are inconsistent with its comprehensive plan. 199. A lowdensity residential ring has formed around the UGBs of the case study areas. California. Fourth. First. and the United States as a whole. Oregon’s urban growth boundary as a landmark planning tool. and Georgia. Nelson summarizes the minimum planning standards required for local governments to follow. Chapter 2 describes author concludes that it is time to provide for state land use authority because growth management states have shown an ability to protect taxpayers from the costs of unwise development. 1990b. which enables local governments to create future areas for urbanization when UGBs need more land. 196. states mandate local planning with little state oversight or enforcement (e. 3: 97-105. The author finds that state programs in Colorado. Salem. states provide state enabling legislation for local planning (all states have done this to some degree). DC: International City Management Association. Nelson compares farmland statistics in Oregon. The author suggests that Georgia’s growthstrategies program will be successful because of the role of regional development centers in the process and because the planning requirements are modest. 197. One of the unintended consequences of Oregon’s program is that sometimes it is easier to develop outside UGBs than inside them. More recent data suggest that Oregon lost farms at the same rate as Washington State and the United States as a whole. Preserving prime farmland in the face of urbanization: Lessons from Oregon. He concludes that successful farmland preservation relies on a combination of techniques that reinforce each other. but it gained land in farms. adopted in 1992. including a consensus for planning and gubernatorial leadership.. This book contains ten chapters on various aspects of urban and rural growth management. . and land use elements. Growth strategies: The new planning game in Georgia. The author draws on economic theory and provides empirical work to show that Oregon’s policies (exclusive farm use zones. and Sy Adler. Florida. Urban Land 49. Washington State. community facilities. Generally. California). The author provides an overview of the coordinated planning program established by the 1989 Georgia Planning Act. and the rest of the nation (Daniels and Nelson 1986). and too much land does not prevent urban sprawl. and James B. 8: 32-35. The size of the UGB is important. and Washington mandate local government planning but have been ineffective. 201. with Clancey J. New York’s Adirondack Park Agency). The author concludes with a discussion of the state’s urban reserve rule. Elements of effective state land-use planning policy. farm tax deferral.g. Only Oregon pursues the text-book example of idealized urban form” (p. . and Downloaded from jpl. “Only four states explicitly set forth to achieve an ultimate urban form—Florida. Duncan.g. although ultimate success remains an open question. ed. 1995. 1991. 198. Bishop. Arthur C. 1994. Chicago: Planners Press. DeGrove. 4: 467-88. whereas Washington and the nation lost farmland. The author concludes by highlighting a number of challenges that will require Oregon to rethink its existing land use planning program. Carl Abbott. Florida and Oregon). . The two cornerstones of Oregon’s planning program have been the preservation of resource lands and the containment of urban development within urban growth boundaries (UGBs). . growth boundaries. New Jersey. 1: 4-8. Blazing new planning trails in Oregon. Mullen and Kirk R. Maine. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. and Oregon. . economic development. 2013 . Local governments frequently wanted more land inside UGBs than the state’s Department of Land Conservation and Development felt was justified. Reprinted in Balanced growth: A planning guide for local government. However.. Kansas. Second. Case studies of development in Oregon reveal that certain counties allow too much development in exclusive farm use and forest zones. 1990a. The author examines the theoretical and empirical implications of UGBs. Hawaii. Growth management principles and practices. These standards refer to population. and Eugene. Nelson. Third.

Maryland’s Economic Growth. Georgia (coordinated planning legislation). Implementation of Maryland’s Economic Growth. Nolon. 4: 1109-30. New Jersey. The author uses a case study of New York. Maine. The authors define ten states as “growth management states” (California. 203. Florida’s legislation. John M. including a legislatively adopted state comprehensive plan and the Omnibus Growth Management Act. Vermont. O’Connell. Hawaii. The authors provide a brief history of planning in Maryland. Oregon. Robert. In 1987. 1991. The author discusses the concerns of California’s legislators and citizens in controlling growth and suggests that California should adopt. The authors list the seven “visions” or goals established by the law. and Washington) and list thirteen states with “state comprehensive growth legislation. Rhode Island. Massachusetts (Cape Cod Commission Act of 1989 and Martha’s Vineyard Commission Act of 1974).sagepub. Resource Protection. TX: Southwestern Legal Foundation. and stronger local land use regulations. and California. Daniel W. 1997. In Perspectives on Florida’s Growth Management Act of 1985. John R. The authors find that mandatory planning with a strong state role exists in Oregon. New Jersey. Accommodating home rule in state land use reform. The act also created the Economic Growth. Dallas. Zoning & Eminent Domain. regional plans. 16). Florida. The authors conclude with a discussion of emerging issues in the implementation of the 1992 act. MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. In Modernizing State planning statutes: The Growing Smart working papers. Resource Protection. The author then describes the 1985 legislative session and its politics and outcomes. Maine. The author describes techniques for achieving coordination. with some adjustments. and streamline development regulations in areas suitable for growth. Environmental and Urban Issues 23.. Florida is well under way in implementing the growth management legislation it adopted in 1985. Governor William Donald Schaefer signed an executive order that established procedures for the review of state projects to ensure consistency with state policies and local comprehensive plans. 462/463. New directions in state legislation: The Florida Growth Management Act and state comprehensive plan. eds. He concludes that there is little evidence that top-down approaches work well and that growth management programs should be grounded at the local level. Home rule provisions authorize local governments to exercise broad land use controls. The author also provides a useful time line from 1985 to 1989 that shows the adoption schedules for the state plan. 204. which included the adoption of a local comprehensive planning act in 1975 and the preparation and submittal of a state plan in 1978. The Maryland Office of Planning was created to establish policies and procedures to implement the program and to staff the commission. Planning Advisory Service Report no. 1996. reforms to the Development of Regional Impact review process. Rhode Island. Noonan. Maryland joined other states and agencies by entering into an interstate agreement to protect the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay. 2013 . and Planning Act. and then he provides evaluation criteria for meaningful collaboration. 202. Maryland. Resource Protection. 4: 9-14. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 24. local governments frequently turn in defense to their local home rule. and Washington. The consistency doctrine is described within the context of programs in Oregon. James T. only to find state regulation supersedes their home rule authority. The legislature reacted to the “thick and wordy [state plan] document by filing it on the proverbial shelf” (p. improved coastal planning. also known as the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. The author describes the state’s pre-1985 growth management system. and Planing Commission. Florida’s growth management program has been nationally recognized since the 1970s. and Planning Act of 1992 created new goals to guide the state’s future. Comprehensive plans were required to be revised by July 1. The 1992 act amended Maryland’s planning and zoning enabling legislation to require that local comprehensive plans be consistent with. Growth management: What California can learn from the sunshine state. Juergensmeyer.” Including the ten states listed above. 1986. a home rule state. contain a sensitive-area element. DeGrove and Julian C. and implement. Cambridge. Vermont. Also in 1992. The author discusses the background and implementation of Florida’s Growth Management Act. 1986. Odland. 1. and Gail Moran. A 1991 “2020 bill” failed to pass the legislature because it was considered too radical 313 in that it would have established specific standards for local government planning. Vol. to show that local zoning authority is eroded by state agencies such as the Adirondack Park Agency. California. the state visions. and New York (Adirondack Park Agency Act of 1971) are listed as having comprehensive growth legislation. The final chapter discusses ingredients of effective growth management policies. Downloaded from jpl. The Development of Regional Impact program shouldered major responsibility for guiding and coordinating growth during the pre-1985 period. finding that the state created a State Planning Commission in 1933. and local comprehensive plans. agency functional plans. This is one of several articles that have been published in the “Making It Happen in Growth Management” series of Environmental and Urban Issues. Florida. 205. and Georgia are characterized as mandatory programs with weak state roles. 1996. Florida. Faced with intrusions of state agencies in land use matters. Also published in Proceedings of the Institute on Planning. He notes that the 1975 Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act did not live up to its hopes and aspirations either.com by guest on January 31. Most states have not encouraged local collaboration in land use policies.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 state and regional growth management approaches. O’Connell describes the required contents of local comprehensive plans. Chicago: American Planning Association. He analyzes how effective Florida’s plan has been in achieving its legislative goals.

Washington. energy production and facility siting. . Salem: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. The advocacy group took issue with many local land use decisions. The coastal program has built its credibility by resolving critical issues. director of Portland’s Tri-Met transit district. Florida. It also includes quotations about Oregon’s statewide land use planning program. 1998. 11 (November): 9-13. which established a regional resource management program for the protection of the state’s coastal resources.com by guest on January 31. Patton. 1000 Friends are watching. and Vermont have “passed important procedural reforms for state land use planning and control. 1998. problems. An appendix provides sample code language that can be used to implement smart development principles. Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program. Downloaded from jpl. Scott. 1985.314 Journal of Planning Literature 210. The department has established a working group structure that includes a core group along with adjunct groups on community development patterns. 1991. see Howe (1991a in this bibliography). 207. 1997. Governor John Kitzhaber proclaimed May 1998 to be land use planning month in Oregon. land use controls. Urban growth management study: Summary report. Owens. In Management and control of growth: Issues. and urban growth boundary amendments. new communities. and building regional consensus. Oregon’s future. Planning 58. This publication provides an overview of smart development concepts and outlines strategies to overcome obstacles to compact urban form. Local governments must meet this last mandate either through better urban growth management (e. The report summarizes major findings about development occurring inside and outside urban growth boundaries and sets forth proposals for improving growth management. the state’s public interest group established to monitor Oregon’s land use program. the urbanization goal. 1975. 1992. 479. This guidebook shows local governments how to implement Oregon’s 1995 House Bill 2709. g. Milton. Miner. David W. Journal of the American Planning Association 51. and provide for adequate supplies of urban land inside urban growth boundaries to meet twenty-year needs. managing oceanfront development. 213. Delaware’s coastal zone protection (1971) and Wisconsin’s Water Re- 206. The summary report also describes major conclusions about infrastructure funding for growth. Massachusetts. An appendix to the report provides data on residential development and subdivision activity in four case study areas. 3: 322-29. eds. This report summarizes the multiple-volume study sponsored by Oregon in the early 1990s that addresses growing concerns about growth management in the state’s urban areas. Planning for residential growth: A workbook for Oregon’s urban areas. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. 209. 212. Goal 14 urbanization bulletin #3: An update on proposed refinements to goal 14. Gordon. trends. population forecasts and coordination. With regard to land use. which indicates that similar “1000 Friends” organizations exist in Washington. Salem: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. prepare housing needs assessments. Planning Advisory Service Report no. 1997.. . the urbanization goal. Coastal management in North Carolina. Oregon. Randall W. The act required local land use planning at a time when rural counties and small towns in the coastal region had no comprehensive plans and few. The author provides an overview of the present program and highlights significant program initiatives. This bulletin describes ongoing efforts by the Department of Land Conservation and Development to adopt a rule elaborating on Goal 14. Harbingers of state growth policies. DC: Urban Land Institute. if any. This publication commemorates the twenty-fifth anniversary of Oregon’s planning program. Chicago: American Planning Association. Vol. 3. North Carolina enacted the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). and land use. . as suggesting that the state land use program would have fallen to one of many repeal efforts if it had not been for 1000 Friends. This article includes an inset by Sylvia Lewis. 322). and Florida. housing. Land use planning: Oregon’s tradition. Oregon has the best system in the United States for preserving livability. yet it is not good enough because livability is degrading. Brower. Patton. who had a staff of twenty-three and a budget of $2 million. which requires certain local governments to conduct buildable-lands analyses. The author suggests that continued success of the coastal program is far from ensured. This article is part of a symposium on coastal management. The principles of smart development. 208. For an abstract of another work completed as part of the urban growth management study. transportation. 2013 . Salem: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. The comprehensive local land use plan was made one of the “cornerstones” of CAMA. A discussion on the legacy of Governor Tom McCall also took place at Oregon State University. The authors begin with the context of national growth policies and describe state efforts in the functional areas of population policy. Maine. 1000 Friends was led by Henry Richmond. the authors note that Hawaii.” They find further that “more than 30 states are actively exploring alternative approaches through citizen commissions. This article describes the influence of 1000 Friends of Oregon.sagepub. 211. environmental protection. Hawaii. legislative hearings. or administrative task forces” (p. David J. Salem: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. establishing minimum development density zoning) or through expansion of existing urban growth boundaries. Oliver. The publication includes a brief history of Oregon’s land use planning and a sample press release and sample proclamation for cities and counties to join in observing the anniversary. In 1974. and Dallas D. and Janet W. H. Oliver cites Tom Walsh. techniques.

Chicago: American Bar Association. Oregon. including concurrency and infrastructure funding. including the Hackensack Meadowlands District and Development Commission (1968). Maine. Three chapters are devoted to Florida programs: Florida’s Developments of Regional Impact. the Division of Administrative Hearings. Nevada.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 sources Act of 1966 (shorelands protection) are also cited by the authors as examples of special districts to deal with special land use or resource problems. Maine. and local comprehensive planning process. The authors describe provisions for adopting the new state comprehensive plan. . Thomas G. 217. 215. New Jersey. 1974) provides data for all fifty states as of September 1. Neal R. but others have enacted more modest growth restraints. In State and regional comprehensive planning: Implementing new methods for growth management. County News (October 26): 17. 214. 3: 515-98. Minnesota provided a well-defined process for designating critical areas and actually designated two critical areas but has not done much beyond those actions. and the Martha’s Vineyard Commission (1974). the prevention of urban sprawl. regional. 88). An appendix to this article. Oregon. State land use planning and regulation: Florida. Florida’s program surpasses even the much heralded Oregon planning system as the nation’s most comprehensive planning legislation. Rhode Island. regional. he describes the institutional players: local gov- 315 ernments. regulation of critical areas. capital improvements programming. Managing Florida’s growth: Toward an integrated state. Although local comprehensive plans must be consistent with applicable regional policy plans. He finds that Wyoming followed Oregon in vesting planning in an appointed board. regulations. Florida State University Law Review 13. The author describes elements of required local comprehensive plans. and Wisconsin. and the Florida Administration Commission. 3: 1141-79. 1985. Tennessee’s legislature defied conventional political wisdom and passed a bill that requires cities and counties to manage growth. The author describes state comprehensive planning in Florida. This article presents the results of an academic team’s content analysis of local development regulations. Is the Growth Management Act working? A survey of resource lands and critical areas development regulations. and population projections and land use allocations. Buchsbaum and Larry J. The author concludes that perhaps state growth management is a cause whose time has come and that curbing sprawl and promoting Smart Growth may make it onto the agenda of more and more states. Peter A. 1974 regarding the status of statewide land use planning and control. and Robert P. Thomas G.. community development. and local comprehensive planning processes. This article is a voluminous account of Florida’s growth management laws that were adopted in the mid-1980s. the Model Code. 1979. and requirements for coastal zone protection. Heath.com by guest on January 31. and Wyoming. eds. including Vermont. 1993. the provision of affordable housing. and local comprehensive planning process. Minnesota. Pelham provides a history of the adoption of state growth management in Florida. Utah. 218. The author also identifies six states that have adopted significant critical-area programs—Colorado (through its land use act). Curbing sprawl: Tennessee’s surprise breakthrough. The author notes that there are a variety of problems that Downloaded from jpl. Wyoming appointed a State Land Use Commission that selected a statewide goal format similar to Oregon’s model. or guidelines for the identification and designation of areas of critical state concern. Lexington. urban sprawl and rural planning. and beyond. However. Peirce. Georgia. Nevada. Banks. including the State Comprehensive Planning Act of 1972 and the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975. each Tennessee city and county will have to agree on an urban growth boundary to guide development for a twenty-year period. Minnesota. problems with the Development of Regional Impact program. MA: Council of State Governments. Florida. from a report titled The Land Use Puzzle (Lexington. and tourism. procedures for preparing and reviewing local comprehensive plans. The appendix shows that twenty-two states had land use planning programs under way and that ten states had established rules or were in the process of establishing rules. Hyde. regional. This book is a survey of ad hoc and comprehensive approaches to state land use planning. MA: D. The growth management provisions are part of the state’s annexation laws. and Wyoming. 1993. the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and Regional Planning Compact (1969). The ten states with critical-area programs under way were Colorado. State and local planning is addressed in chapter 6. and the implementation of the concurrency requirement. Florida. By mid-2001. Pelham. C. New York’s Adirondack Park Agency (1971). and Areas of Critical State Concern programs. William L. New York. Two of the first mandates of the state of Washington’s Growth Management Act require local governments to classify resource lands and regulate development within critical areas. 216. Oregon and Nevada have not exercised their authorization provisions. Failure to produce a growth plan will result in loss of state subsidies for highways. Gary. In May 1998. Oregon. Oregon and Washington have been the top growth management states. Florida’s Regional Planning Councils had not performed very well and their role in the process was reconsidered by the 1993 Florida legislature. 2013 . Florida’s critical-area program is a “virtual replica of the Model Code proposal” (p. the State Land Planning Agency. Delaware. which is followed by a chapter on moving beyond the Model Code. Regional Planning Councils. The Florida experience: Creating a state. Florida. University of Puget Sound Law Review 16. He concludes with a synopsis of major implementation issues. Minnesota. Pivo. Smith. Pelham also briefly describes other programs. and Maryland. the protection of natural resources.sagepub. Pelham. In the third part of the chapter. Hawaii. He provides an overview of the state. 1998.

On balance. and Washington) with some experience with such programs. DC: Island. Florida (1985 and 1975).sagepub. and coastal-area protection. and public policy. He notes that the Model Land Development Code stimulated a “cadre of leaders.” including Fred Bosselman. but languishes in Colorado. home rule chartered in 1990). The author provides a chapter on state and regional land use programs that includes an overview of the quiet revolution. 219. require reform. 293). The author also gives attention to metropolitan and regional planning. 1991. Chicago: American Planning Association. 75). and the slow development of state technical assistance. In Modernizing state planning statutes: The growing smart working papers. great variations in the abilities of local planning staffs. 2: 547-60. Downloaded from jpl. Washington. This paper was first delivered in 1993 at a conference sponsored by the Pace University School of Law. Georgia. The author provides a description of the New Jersey Pinelands Commission. The authors provide a generalized approach to monitoring comprehensive plans prepared pursuant to Washington State’s Growth Management Act of 1990 (see Thompson and Meck 1996 in this bibliography). and local comprehensive planning in Oregon (1973). Journal of the American Planning Association 54. Florida’s law has extensive provisions dealing with state agency strategic plans. 1988. “state land use regulation flourishes in Florida. to develop new state legislation to replace vintage 1920s’ state planning and zoning enabling acts.” and “federally funded coastal zone management performs nicely in Washington state [but] does not exist at all in Georgia or Illinois” (p. Key state growth management strategies include urban growth boundaries and concurrency. Portland’s regional governance structure (organized in 1970. Maine. Liberals believe that there has been too little centralized regulation since the quiet revolution. state growth management programs have achieved a number of important objectives. With regard to requirements for local comprehensive planning. He finds that “nine of the fifty states in the United States have adopted laws that establish policy and regulatory frameworks for governmental guidance of urban development and conservation. and the far West” (p. 1996b. preserve community character and quality. law. 2013 . Porter describes three states (Florida. The chapter also describes special-issue state programs for agricultural land. 1996. Popper describes two conventional but conflicting explanations of what has happened since the quiet revolution. These programs include the Bay Vision 2020 Commission in the San Francisco region (1989). 221. For example. but conservatives claim there has been too much centralization of land use authority. Popper presents a revisionist interpretation of land use regulation—that centralized regulation quietly succeeded through the late 1980s. Pivo. and in Oregon the state planning agency has responsibility for ensuring state agency coordination. Maine. 224. Georgia (1989). Colorado (1974). 222. New Jersey (1986). State growth management acts provide a new context for the coordination of state agency actions. insufficient state funding. New Jersey. . protect environmental and natural resources. Vermont (1988). Washington. “All state growth management programs require that state agencies coordinate their policies and programs with state goals and/or local plans” (p. 1997. A separate chapter is devoted to regional and state growth management programs.” The author also mentions the earliest efforts to assert a state interest in land use. and achieve economic and social goals. strengthened in 1979. A concluding chapter discusses the upside and downside of growth management. Gary. local planning is voluntary in Vermont. Rhode Island. . State framework laws for guiding urban growth and conservation in the United States. “By 1975. Douglas R. Understanding American land use regulation since 1970: A revisionist interpretation. substitution of other environmental programs instead of adopting critical-area protection ordinances.316 Journal of Planning Literature This book is devoted mostly to local growth management techniques. the quiet revolution had achieved at least 20 new environmentally-oriented state land use laws. gaps in the coverage of development regulations for critical areas. Rose. and Rhode Island) with at least two decades of experience with comprehensive statewide growth management programs and six additional states (Georgia. Oregon. Rhode Island (1988). the author finds that Oregon’s model is employed by Florida. Popper. DC: Island. State agency coordination in state growth management programs. 220. including structures for the intergovernmental coordination of plans. Washington. and D. Vermont’s Act 200 has a section on state agency coordination. 1. 3: 291-301. North Carolina (1986). The author outlines several distinct phases through which the coordination process takes place. Vol. 299). Land use and society: Geography. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. He cites New Jersey’s single-purpose regional land use legislation regulating development in the Pinelands and Hackensack Meadowlands in support of his argument that centralized regulation has quietly succeeded. wetlands. The author notes that there are substantial variations among the states. then concludes with components of potential legislation to address state agency coordination. Rutherford H. Pace Environmental Law Review 13. Managing growth in America’s communities. New Jersey.com by guest on January 31. Other states have made midcourse corrections to their centralized land use programs without dismantling them. and Oregon. Maine (1988). The author discusses programs to manage community expansion. mostly in the Northeast. and New Jersey. including missed deadlines. Platt. The author traces the emergence of centralized land use regulation in the early 1970s. and Maryland (1992). Frank J. 1996a. the upper Midwest. and Maryland. however. Vermont. 223. Toward growth management monitoring in Washington State. manage infrastructure. floodplains. Washington (1990 and 1991). Planning Advisory Service Report no. Maryland. 462/463. Porter.

1: 32-33. Maine. He identifies six components of intergovernmental responsibilities in the state acts from the nine states. WA: Puget Sound Council of Governments. absent Oregon’s requirements. except Vermont’s. Maine. . including urban service areas. A Governor’s Commission on Land Conservation and Economic Development began deliberations in 1987. The states are coming. Maryland. 231. 1993. 225. 228. San Diego. which is annotated in this bibliography. is the review by state agencies of local comprehensive plans for consistency with local. and the legislature in 1988 adopted a growth management statute that mandated local comprehensive planning. In 1969. DeGrove (1986b) contributed a chapter. Nebraska) to determine if state mandates make a difference in the quality of local planning.g. 226. regional. Florida and Clackamas County. Maine passed a Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act and a Municipal Subdivision Law and created a Land Use Regulation Commission. 1015). Hawaii’s 1961 land use law. Maine’s legislature passed the Site Location of Development Act. Environmental and Urban Issues 19. Clackamas County would not have practiced growth management the way it has. 1991b. with some brief references to how certain state programs (e. 4: 1015-33. ed. . The author addresses state agency planning and coordination. Florida. 1991a. . New England states (Maine. which provided jurisdiction to the State Environmental Improvement Commission (now the Department of Environmental Protection) to review large residential subdivisions and commercial and industrial projects. 227. In 1991. 1990. The author presents an overview of the state’s second Growth Management Act (1991) and Initiative 547. 229. A California growth management might have prompted the city to better accommodate development within its boundaries. .” The author describes the six phases of the evolution of growth management in Maine. California. 1986. and Washington have programs similar to Oregon’s with regard to urban containment. This is a short article on the adoption of state growth management in Washington State. A key element of all of the state programs. The author concludes that the new state growth management laws raise issues and questions for which there are no readily available answers. The author provides a brief overview of state planning acts. requirements and incentives for local planning. the states are coming! Urban Land 48. The author concludes that programs need time to mature and require continuous refinement and reevaluation to maintain effective intergovernmental relationships for managing growth and development. He then compares two local government growth management programs that operate under state mandates (Sarasota County. Vermont. growth boundaries.com by guest on January 31. and Washington have used Oregon’s program as a model. and the county also probably would have ignored certain issues without the state mandate.sagepub. about tense relations between states and their local governments concerning local planning and zoning powers. and Oregon) encourage or require urban growth management tools. Do state growth management acts make a difference? Local growth management measures under different state growth policies. and Vermont have significant regional planning components. Part 4 of this edited volume describes state and regional growth management efforts in New Jersey (the Pinelands) and state management of the Adirondack Park (see also Ulasewicz 1986 in this bibliography). State programs in Florida. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 24. In 1989. then describes events during the second wave of state actions to manage growth. This report describes various local urban growth management techniques. This article is similar in content to Porter (1996b). and Lincoln-Lancaster County. 2013 . This is one of several articles in the series titled “Making It Happen in Growth Management. Seattle. however. The report also describes facility adequacy and financing and point rating systems. the failed measure that would have produced a stronger statewide growth management system than the one that evolved. Florida’s planning act prompted Sarasota County to embark on a more ambitious effort in contrast to other local governments in the state. Rand. The adoption of growth strategies by state governments suggests that local governments “must be prodded” to manage urban growth effectively (p. Growth management: Keeping on target? Washington. State growth management: The intergovernmental experiment. Pace Law Review 13. Oregon) with two recognized programs that do not operate under state mandates (San Diego. Florida. and Rhode Island) all enacted new legislation in 1988 that required local governments to adopt comprehensive plans consistent with state planning goals. 2: 481-503. the program Downloaded from jpl. Georgia enacted a law creating a three-tiered network of planning. Georgia. on the other hand. Kay. and Vermont’s Act 250 of 1970. Florida has 317 been a leader. New Jersey. and infill development. and state agency plans and state goals. The author finds that there are no definitive answers and it is difficult to assess such differences from these examples. Washington State awakens to growth management. 9: 16-20. 1992. Rhode Island. California. It examines the intergovernmental structures of state growth management programs in nine states. Urban Land 50. New Jersey followed with its State Planning Act of 1986. Porter summarizes state involvement in land use during the quiet revolution. Evolution of a growth management program in Maine. Growth management techniques: A report to the Puget Sound Council of Governments. strengthening its growth management laws in 1985. 230.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 including California’s 1955 local government planning mandate. DC: Urban Land Institute. In 1971. Puget Sound Council of Governments. 4: 2-7. 1991c.. a few observations can be made. has not significantly revisited its general plan since its adoption in 1979. and regional planning. .

The author provides a list of thirty-four possible functions of a state planning agency. The author proposes improvements to Goal 5 so that it can better achieve ecologically sustainable development. 237. and in early 1992 Maine’s growth management program “was a shambles” (p. In Modernizing state planning statutes: The Growing Smart working papers. Salem: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. 1976. and that stable. The author describes four service orientations for state planning and argues that policy-coordinative planning Downloaded from jpl. the sources of monitoring data. State planning as a policycoordinative process. The author’s criticisms of local growth management provide a rationale for state control. nearly one-half of the fifty states adopted power plant siting legislation. Wagner. Planning Advisory Service Report no. 1983. David L. and automated approaches (e. 2: 449-93. coastal zones and critical areas) and the location of major facilities.g. Florida’s 1000 Friends organization was modeled after Oregon’s citizens group. that both carrots and sticks should be used. Washington. Written near the end of the quiet revolution. KY: Council of State Governments. Arizona (1971). Colorado (1972). 1000 Friends of Florida—A new citizens watchdog for sound growth management. Montana (1975). He indicates that states should have a planning agency and program. 235. 1987.318 Journal of Planning Literature (begun in 1967) is more successful than local assistance or physical development planning. Land use and the legislatures: The politics of state innovation. long-term funding for the agency is needed. management planning is more effective than traditional planning. the application of monitoring systems. 462/463. Recommendations for the role and structure of state planning agencies. methods to measure performance. Agencies also need authority to set policy. 234. Rosenbaum. ways to educate the public. 1996. The book also describes the diffusion of state legislation exercising control over natural areas (e. Vermont (site development review in was dismantled because of budget cuts. Richard G. 1976. Massachusetts (critical area program in 1963). Rhode Island (1972). 1. This is a technical-assistance report designed to help local governments monitor compliance with Oregon’s statewide planning goals. and suggests a model to determine the influence of state planning orientations on effectiveness. 3: 9-10. Furthermore. Maine (state management of unorganized territories in 1969). thirteen states had passed mandatory local comprehensive planning legislation: California (1965). This article examines Oregon’s statewide Goal 5 within the context of an emerging approach called “ecologically sustainable development. Reed. Florida (1975). 1: 52-63. Michigan (shorelines management in 1970). assessor’s records). South Dakota (1974). Averil. Oregon (mandatory planning and zoning in 1969). He presents a brief history of state planning. 238. 1995. Colorado (Land Use Act in 1971). and Nebraska (1975). 236. this book examines the origin and diffusion of innovative state statutes that provide for direct state control over land use. In other words. Nelson.. Rosebaugh. For instance. basic monitoring system components and procedures. It provides an introduction to the planning process and describes the role of monitoring in the comprehensive planning process.g. that the agency’s function should be to review and coordinate rather than to plan. subdivision control. Environmental and Urban Issues 4. which was formed in 1975 to keep Oregon’s land use program on track. The author concludes that the future of Maine’s growth management program remains uncertain because of a recent recession and opposition from property rights advocates. Wyoming (1975).. Oregon (1969 and 1973). but standards are mandatory for those cities that do plan. 232. DC: Urban Institute. Nevada (1973). The report then describes the data needed for monitoring. The author concludes that ecologically sustainable development will not be achieved under the current language of Goal 5. Vol. Rohse. and zoning. Legislation was proposed and passed those reinstated portions of the law in 1992. 233. Virginia (1975). provides some empirical data on state planning orientations.com by guest on January 31. The state’s role in land resource management. Delaware (Coastal Zone Act in 1971). Richard Ragatz Associates.sagepub. Local planning is optional under the modified growth management program. This short article describes the organization and efforts of 1000 Friends of Florida to ensure effective implementation of the state’s growth management laws. Idaho (1975). then describes six principal types of state land use planning programs and cites an example state for each type. Chicago: American Planning Association. 5). as of December 1975. and means to resolve disputes. and William R. Lexington. Rubino. A founding conference was scheduled for the fall of 1987.” The author defines this approach. Mitch. Oregon’s Goal Five: Is ecologically sustainable development reflected? Willamette Law Review 31. Rothrock. 2013 . and fourteen states had adopted shorelands protection legislation by December 1975. Rosenbaum’s (1976) findings are surprisingly not well-known. Comprehensive plan monitoring: Guidelines and resources for Oregon communities. fourteen states had adopted wetland protection laws. then reviews Goal 5 to determine if ecologically sustainable development is reflected in its language and design. 1972. The author reviews the state’s interests in land use planning.. Inc. New York (Adirondack Park). The statutes examined include mandates for local comprehensive planning. Nathaniel P. The authors introduce the notion of land as a resource and identify ten states that have enacted major forms of state land use management: Hawaii (land use law in 1961). Journal of the American Institute of Planners 42.

and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971. Settle. At least eight states (California. The author argues that “Washington may have the nation’s most confusing pattern of constitutional and statutory authority for local land use planning and regulation” (p. and Virginia” (p. Scott. Filling legislative gaps in Washington’s growth management law. She notes that “interest in comprehensive planning at the state level has recently surfaced in California. present. Georgia. . Techniques in application. Silverman. which were adopted in 1990 and 1991. Florida. One of the major setbacks to state growth management in the 1990s was the abolition of Maine’s comprehensive planning program in 1991. Massachusetts. 1978. 319 242. Patton and Patton 1975). Connecticut. Jane A. 241. Wilson and Watkins 1978). Hawaii. Vol.sagepub. Grant 1978. 871). Vol. eds. the administrative process. Massachusetts. WA: Butterworth Legal. Schnidman. 4) and that the state has shown an “extremely permissive pattern of constitutional authority to plan and regulate land use” (p. Seattle. 1975. Smith. 244. 3. coastal areas).. Richard L. Statewide comprehensive planning: The next wave. and judicial review of local land use regulation. Rhode Island. North Carolina. Gavigan. The growth management revolution in Washington: Past.g. 1998. the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. eds. 8: 3-6. 2013 . . The authors also summarize federal legislation. Maryland. and Dallas D. Washington State legislators created a State Land Planning Commission in 1971 and considered a state-supervised land use regulatory system in the early 1970s. Young Jr. Land Use Law and Zoning Digest 50. The author identifies eleven states that “have programs that encourage or require statewide comprehensive planning or growth management plans” (p. Washington land use and environmental law and practice. Healy 1978a. Haggard.com by guest on January 31. “not only because the distinguished legal reformers of the American Law Institute had proposed the Model Land Development Code. This article is part of a symposium sponsored by the University of Puget Sound School of Law on Washington State’s Growth Management Acts. The federal legislation was known as the Federal Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act. Hawaii). 240. DC: Urban Land Institute..” is most relevant here and includes several works excerpted in this bibliography (see Council of State Governments 1978. The authors classify land resource management into four approaches: state comprehensive land use management (e.. Frank. vague language.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 1970). eds. and Rufus C. Richard L. and future. 2: 3-9. University of Puget Sound Law Review 16. and Virginia) were working toward the goal of adopting statewide comprehensive planning or growth management statutes. subdivision regulation. Vermont. They Downloaded from jpl. Management and control of growth. Chicago: American Bar Association. 1983. Nathan and Barusch 1978. Colorado. 1993.. Oregon. management of specific geographic or critical areas (twelve states. Coalitions of “1000 Friends” exist in Florida. 4. Richard L. and state management of uncontrolled areas (e. trends. The author suggests ten steps for successful reform of state growth management statutes.. 1992. litigation. Brower. Maine). New York State created the State Land Use Advisory Committee to advise the state legislative commission in its effort to codify and clarify existing land use laws. Washington. He describes the law of public land use regulation in Washington. Godshalk 1975. Miner. The author concludes that the future of coordinated comprehensive planning may be influenced by a growing property rights movement. Dunham 1975. Management and control of growth: Issues. Settle. 238). but it was retained in modified form in 1992. and Charles G. and Washington. techniques. New York. Washington’s state land use system has transitioned in a revolutionary fashion from an “anachronistic patchwork” of laws to a modern growth management system. 1978b. In 1990. North Carolina. These states are Delaware. This work is similar to the updated content provided in Salkin (1993).g. Land Use Law and Zoning Digest 44. 239. Pennsylvania.. Davis 1978.g. White. The author summarizes recent efforts to adopt growth management programs in these states. as a result. They find that the growth management acts were adopted after many political compromises and. Buck and Joel E. “State Involvement in Growth Management. and significant gaps. 3: 867-941. problems. This treatise is one of four volumes produced during the 1970s by the Urban Land Institute on growth management in the United States. 245. This is one of four volumes published by the Urban Land Institute on growth management. and Washington. Hawaii. The article provides one of the most detailed accounts to be published on the formative stage of Washington’s growth management law. DC: Urban Land Institute. land management according to functional criteria (e. Washington. Chapter 27. Peter A. Settle also describes legal principles that include the appearance of fairness doctrine. Political strategies for modernizing state land-use statutes. Massachusetts. The authors describe the basic provisions of the growth management program developed in Washington State. zoning. Colorado). but also because Congress was on the verge of enacting a bill containing large subsidies for states with such legislation” (p. New Jersey.g. New York. with Peter L. Buchsbaum and Larry J. 5). Part 2 provides chapters on the lawyer-client relationship. In State and regional comprehensive planning: Implementing new methods for growth management. Settle. 237). David J. e.. Randall W. Virginia. the taking issue. Part 1 provides chapters on comprehensive planning. contain unresolved internal inconsistencies. 243. and Charles R. The authors provide a meticulous account of the “torturous” legislative history of the Growth Management Acts. A few of the articles appear in this annotated bibliography (see Bagne 1975. 1993. then outline other choices for adopting land resource management programs. Pennsylvania. Maine. and Wisconsin (shoreline zoning law in 1965). Connecticut. and judicial review... 1978c.

2013 . Journal of the American Planning Association 64. The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985 required legislative adoption of “minimum criteria for the include a list of the Growth Management Act‘s thirteen goals and discuss requirements for urban growth areas and concurrency. Florida: Grappling with growth II. and expensive development review procedures. The authors note that counties in the Puget Sound region have also cooperated with respect to regional planning policies and urban growth boundaries. 1986. but legislators from fast-growing nonmetropolitan areas of the state were. 3: 311-23. sanctions for noncompliance. The author argues that a more rural-based framework is needed to understand support for growth management in Idaho. MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. and others. Idaho area were less Downloaded from jpl. housing. The book also discusses state and regional planning in the functional areas of housing. eds. eds.g. In Growth management: The planning challenge of the 1990s. The legislature filled in the gaps of the 1990 law with the second Growth Management Act of 1991. Jay M. Larsen. open space protection.com by guest on January 31. Chicago: American Bar Association. 1993. This is one of the few articles in this bibliography that is devoted exclusively to an analysis of state administrative rules for growth management. Siemon. then discusses the roles that Regional Planning Councils (RPCs) play in Florida and Regional Development Centers (RDCs) play in Georgia in the growth management process. grants and technical assistance). Smith. quality-of-life ratings). The practice of state and regional planning. Newbury Park. and requirements for countywide planning policies. see Godschalk (1986) annotated in this bibliography. Legislative support for growth management in the Rocky Mountains: An exploration of attitudes in Idaho. He also notes that Georgia’s expectation that regional and state plans will “materialize” from local comprehensive plans and planning activity “seems a bit naive” (p. Planning for growth. 248. yet not completely impossible challenges (p. demographics) or perceptual factors (e. DeGrove and Julian C. then describes the Growth Management Act of 1985. 1985. Chicago: American Planning Association. Juergensmeyer. rural lands. 250. The author provides a history of substate regional planning in the two states. The first part of the book provides chapters on the evolution of planning (see McDowell 1986 in this bibliography).. Charles L. Frank S. Florida’s RPCs have had a major role in reviewing Developments of Regional Impact. CA: Sage. Earl M. She finds that both objective and perceptual factors are important predictors of legislative support for growth management. Idaho is a rapidly growing mountain state. Despite these positive results.. Irving Hand. 9: 36-37. and Bruce McDowell. Washington style. Substate frameworks for growth management: Florida and Georgia. 321). concurrency. In State and regional comprehensive planning: Implementing new methods for growth management. transportation. and state planning administration. overall. The author also describes substantive issues. 1993. quite supportive of growth management. For a description of state urban development strategies. In Perspectives on Florida’s Growth Management Act of 1985. including reforms to the Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 and the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975. Starnes provides a history of Florida’s Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 and legislation preceding it. The authors indicate how state growth management laws were reformed to address some of the difficulties associated with development review procedures. Washington’s legislature adopted the Growth Management Act of 1990 that required certain counties to prepare comprehensive plans and land development regulations.320 Journal of Planning Literature supportive of both local and state growth management. . This edited volume describes planning in states and regions. 249. pursuant to the Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972.. including affordable housing. environmental protection. Starnes. and capital facilities. Florida’s State and Regional Planning Act of 1984 mandated that counties be members of RPCs and required the preparation of comprehensive regional policy plans. the author concludes that “proponents of growth management planning in Idaho and other mountain states would be likely to face difficult. Both Florida and Georgia have mandatory substate regional planning as part of their state growth management programs. Gayla. lengthy. The 1991 law deferred the issue of protecting “lands of statewide significance” by creating a committee with an assignment to report to the legislature about criteria to be used in designating significant areas.g.. the 1989 Planning Act gave RDCs significant planning roles in the state’s three-tiered planning system. 247. The author cites the puzzling finding that legislators from the Boise. Mandatory elements of comprehensive plans include land use.g. 246. ed. Stein. The author presents results of a survey and an analysis of whether legislative support for growth management is driven more by objective factors (e. So. 1998.. 92). 1986. the author indicates that “criteria for differentiating among communities for planning purposes should be built into the planning laws of the two states” (p. the status of state planning. In a concluding section. transportation. which added incentives for local compliance (e. Larry J. Smutney. utilities. 92). Florida’s minimum criteria rule.sagepub. and Wendy U. Urban Land 44. They conclude that the new mandates offer great promise that Florida will meet the challenge of growth management. techniques for implementing state plans. Cambridge. 251. Regulatory programs spawned by Florida’s growth management program have resulted in a series of complex. Florida’s Growth Management Act of 1985 was a package that incorporated several separate acts. In Georgia. John M. The article begins with a brief literature review of other state programs and the popular and legislative support for selected programs. and others.

the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The author describes New Jersey’s process of cross acceptance as a possible alternative to the state certification of local comprehensive plans. and it officially convened in March 1970. in- 321 cluding a land capability approach and a regional plan adopted in December 1971. transportation demand management.. reviewing public and private projects before consideration by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency” (p. 1986. 253. The California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was reconstituted in 1973 by the California legislature in response to the ineffectiveness of the bistate Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. yet it will restrict flexibility in local comprehensive planning. 1 (January): 12-4. Stone and Seymour also describe California’s Environmental Quality Act. environment. 168). Washington. The state agency acted “as an additional line of defense for the California side of the basin. Stroud. In State and regional comprehensive planning: Implementing new methods for growth management. the California Coastal Act. Strong. A two. Efforts to revise the bistate compact establishing the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency failed in part because the state of Nevada opposed federal intervention. the Nevada legislature passed a proposal revamping the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the U. In Modernizing state planning statutes: The Growing Smart working papers. The author describes the process of planning undertaken by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Stone.). The editor concludes the work with future issues in growth management. Smith. under the threat that national scenic area legislation would be applied at Tahoe. The author argues that the importance of the Rule Number 9J-5 cannot be overemphasized. Chicago: American Bar Association. Part 2 provides alternative state approaches to growth management. 1989. ed. 1993. Part 1 of this edited volume contains three chapters that focus on the roles of governments in growth management programs (see DeGrove and Metzger 1993 and Innes 1993 in this bibliography). and Georgia (three incentive-based programs). The structures of plan review and certification vary among the growth management states. California land-use planning law: State preemption and local control. President Nixon signed a bill that created the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 1980. The rule was numbered 9J-5 and was adopted during February 1986. and Daniel W. She identifies several elements that should be included in the plan review and certification process. Florida. 1996. 2013 .com by guest on January 31. He provides a detailed analysis of the rule and its substantive contents (transportation.to three-year plan review time frame might not be too unrealistic to adequately address planning issues. Buchsbaum and Larry J.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 review and determination of compliance of local government comprehensive plans” (p. and evaluating housing elements (see Connerly and Muller 1993 in this bibliography). Planning 52. Nancy. and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. including chapters on Oregon (Howe 1993 in this bibliography). Reprinted in The best of Planning: Two decades of articles from the magazine of the American Planning Association. Despite these important legislative efforts. In 1969. Jay M. Vol. The authors describe two new Florida laws that together represent an omnibus package of major changes to growth management laws: the State Comprehensive Plan Act and the Growth Management Act.sagepub. DC: National Academy of Public Administration. 257. substate frameworks in Florida and Georgia (Starnes 1993 in this bibliography). New Jersey (Epling 1993 in this bibliography).. Stroud. Tahoe: An environmental history. Rhode Island. 256. paying for growth. 72). including requirements for the detailed housing and open-space elements of general plans. and John M. Chicago: American Planning Association. State review and certification of local plans. Most states with plan review experience find that the process takes more time than initially anticipated. Nancy. However. in part because it will provide the tool for measuring the quality and content of local comprehensive plans. DeGrove. Congress passed the bistate compact revision in December 1980. and Philip A. 252. Growth management: The planning challenge of the 1990s. 1993. Chicago: American Planning Association. Stroud. By the late 1970s. The revision to the bistate compact called for the phasing out of the California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency after the adoption of ordinances to implement a new regional plan. Nancy E. and Nevada established a similar agency for its side of the Lake Tahoe basin in 1968. eds. Katherine E. Washington (all mandated programs) and Maine. He concludes that the rule is tailored to Florida’s specific needs. however. there is still no comprehensive state planning scheme in California. California established its California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency in 1967. California has historically taken a minimalist position with respect to state supervision of local general planning. The author describes the process by which state agencies review and certify local comprehensive plans. Douglas H. CA: Sage. Vermont. etc. Planning Advisory Service Report no. O’Connell. Degrove (1984) draws heavily on this early effort. including environmental protection. 254. Florida toughens up its land-use laws. Seymour. 1. Newbury Park. and California (Fulton 1993 in this bibliography). 462/463. then provides an evaluation of the minimumcriteria rule. 255. California turned increasingly to its own agency to restrict growth in the basin. The authors suggest that local government preparation of capital-improvement elements is a key addition to the comprehensive planning require- Downloaded from jpl. Stein. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. noting both strengths and weaknesses. A table summarizes the plan review structures in Oregon. This work is not available to the author. Peter A.S. Oregon’s state urban strategy. Part 3 consists of chapters on substantive growth management issues. The authors discuss the more important examples of California’s state intervention in local land use regulation. 1984.

Fairness. describes the state’s planning and regulatory system as a “federalist” approach. the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Vol. About fifteen states follow the Fasano rule established by Oregon’s Supreme Court. In Planning the Oregon way: A twenty year evaluation. The author describes the roles of Oregon’s Department of Land Conservation and Development. and 1993 to 1996. and the Land Use Board of Appeals. The author argues that the complexities of financing growth management threaten the viability of strong planning policy. Stuart. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 20. “South Carolina recently consolidated its existing city and county planning enabling legislation into the South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act of 1994. special issues such as natural areas (wetlands. The author concludes with a statement on the positive uses of growth management. Turner. Sullivan.com by guest on January 31. He identifies themes that have emerged to set Oregon’s planning program apart from other states. The author argues that the Oregon Supreme Court deci- Downloaded from jpl. . Greg. Sullivan. The Urban Lawyer 27. that it will be a formidable task for Florida’s planners to produce and coordinate plans. These include a policy on urban growth boundaries. 264. 1993. This is a short annotated bibliography of state-specific reports and related publications of interest to reformers of state planning enabling statutes. “A strong partnership framework may not necessarily eliminate the tension between the state and its localities” (p. Florida’s Department of Community Affairs is financing some of the efforts to comply with the new requirements. 260. Peter A. the acknowledgment and periodic review processes. and Sy Adler. 1990a. Planning Advisory Service Report no.. 258.sagepub. simplicity. 1994. The author describes the acknowledgment process of approving local comprehensive plans. rule making. They note. however. Sullivan also describes various aspects of Oregon’s land use program including adoption and amendment of statewide planning goals.322 Journal of Planning Literature sion in Fasano v.e. and operations of the Land Use Board of Appeals are discussed. Pelham. He concludes that “some planners find the [Oregon] system too law oriented. 2013 .. and groundwater resources). Report of the comprehensive planning and growth management subcommittee. 261. One key exam- ments. 263. 80). Robyne S. and flexibility are important goals in establishing concurrency management systems. and the relationship between the state and local governments. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County. which made zoning regulations subordinate to comprehensive plans. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. 799). enforcement. 2: 59-73. 462/463. processes of ”acknowledgment” and periodic review of plans and regulations. at a minimum. Local governments in South Carolina may not adopt zoning ordinances and land development regulations unless. Rule 9J-5) mandated by the state is provided. 259. The concluding section describes coordination between the state and local governments. Chicago: American Planning Association. 1989 to 1992. eds. In State and regional comprehensive planning: Implementing new methods for growth management. Turner describes how the partnership framework has been built over time. rather than oriented toward their own planning discipline” (p. The authors report recent court decisions of relevance to local planning and zoning in various states. and Stuart Meck. In Modernizing state planning statutes: The Growing Smart working papers. Carl Abbott. Appendix A. 1987 to 1991. Sullivan. and local permitting processes. The act does not appear to set more stringent standards for the contents of local comprehensive plans” (p. and a state agency to review local and state agency land use decisions. 262. Smith. Buchsbaum and Larry J. Edward J. 1994. and other land use regulations. . the land use and community-facilities elements of a local comprehensive plan are adopted.. Thompson. The legal evolution of the Oregon planning system. 4: 781-810. Florida’s Growth Management Act is an evolving legislative mandate that relies on a partnership approach to state and local relations. one of Oregon’s leading land use attorneys. The author concludes that by implementing various principles. Edward J. The implementation of the Growth Management Act has followed four overlapping phases of implementation: 1985 to 1987. Growth management decision criteria: Do technical standards determine priorities? State and Local Government Review 25. and Thomas G. eds. describes Florida’s growth management legislation. and highlights conceptual issues and practical methods to refine concurrency management systems. The author compares strengths and weaknesses of concurrency management systems in Broward and Lee Counties. Reform of state planning statutes: A bibliography. A brief overview of concurrency requirements (i. which requires counties to have comprehensive plans and implement their plans with zoning. Intergovernmental growth management: A partnership framework for state-local relations. Does growth management lead to rational policy making? Turner discusses the policy contexts of growth management. Laura A. the periodic review process. Several characteristics distinguish Oregon’s growth management program from other state growth management programs. 1995. Deborah Howe. 1993. is a minority position among the states. subdivision. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 120. Chicago: American Bar Association. 3: 79-95. and includes the results of a survey of Florida’s local planning directors about growth management objectives and accomplishments. enforcement. Oregon blazes a trail. Concurrency-management practices in Florida: A comparative assessment. 3: 186-96. coastlines. and there is now much more emphasis on coastal management. Florida. In addition. 88). 1996. concurrency management can provide an effective growth management tool for local governments. 1. but there may be a shortage of experienced planners in Florida given the new demand for plans and regulations.

State interventions in land use planning can overcome or limit the growth machine’s local parochial interests. 1981. and Rhode Island have had mixed success. as amended. Journal of Urban Affairs 12. Rhode Island passed the Zoning Enabling Act of 1991 to repeal and replace its original enabling statute passed in 1921. . Growth management in Florida.com by guest on January 31. Rather. This is one of a continuing series of articles on “Making It Happen in Growth Management. 1: 35-47. 1: 16-26. Quiet revolution for whom? Annals of the Association of American Geographers 71. The author. Rhode Island’s Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act of 1988 requires every city and town to prepare and adopt a local comprehensive plan that contains nine elements. Implementation of state intervention strategies in Oregon. 270. Chapter 151. are portrayed as being rational and in the public interest. New rules for the growth game: The use of rational state standards in land use policy. and a critique of this ideology is long overdue. William Reilly.sagepub. 269. The author describes how Florida’s growth policies have changed from growth facilitator (pre-1975) to growth regulator (1975 to 1985) to growth manager (post-1985) through the injection of rational policy direction by centralized authority. cities and towns have eighteen months from the date of plan adoption to make their zoning ordinances comply with their 323 comprehensive plans. A second attempt at state growth management began in 1987 and succeeded by 1992. Ulasewicz. VT: State Planning Office. 1986. the author notes that the three C‘s of the second wave of growth management in Florida are consistency. 25). This article traces the genesis of the reform movement in land use control from the 1920s through the 1970s. The author describes the State of Florida’s efforts to balance private efficiency of development costs and public equity benefits through rational standards for growth management. The author also describes a third statute. 1990b. The City as a Growth Machine. Wallis. The quiet revolution was a little late in arriving to Rhode Island. which sought to centralize land use authority at the regional and state levels and preempt local autonomy. who was executive director of the Adirondack Park Agency. and Michael Heiman. Washington. Montpelier. and the Rockefeller Foundation—has directed the mainstream reform movement. Richard. Walker. State Land Use and Development Plans. Vermont. 265. but the planning principles were not intended to be used as criteria in the Act 250 permit process. Vermont’s Land Use and Development Law as Amended by the Capability and Development Plan Approved by the 1973 General Assembly. This publication describes Act 250 as amended by the Capability and Development Plan and provides the full text of 10 Vermont Statutes Annotated. 1993. one of which is that the many small towns inside the park are too rural to undertake comprehensive planning. Vermont General Assembly. American Journal of Sociology 82: 309-22). 1: 67-83. 1976. Thomas A. and compactness. This bill added planning principles and development criteria to Vermont’s Act 250. the guidelines were supposed to provide the basis for the Vermont land use plan. Quiet revolution reforms. Cambridge. concurrency. The author identifies the difficulties and failures of the state program. Furthermore. finding that large-scale residential development is not necessarily more efficient. Daniel W. Allan D. 266. Despite certain limitations. New Jersey. 267. The Adirondack Park contains six million acres and constitutes one-fifth of the land mass of New York State. The author describes the political economic “growth machine” explanation of growth politics (see Harvey Molotch. ed. The authors arrgue that this ideology is considered the “liberal” position on land use reform. The Adirondack Park Agency was established within the state’s executive branch in 1971. indicates that the agency is reassessing its local assistance program. In 1973. Varian. 1993. Adirondack Park: Successful state management. The 1991 enabling legislation authorized local governments to use new techniques such as performance standards. An attempt to adopt a state growth management program based on the Model Land Development Code began in 1976 but quickly peaked and then failed by 1979. the Land Development and Subdivision Review Enabling Act of 1992. This is one of a series of detailed working papers published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy on state growth management programs. 1989). Borrowing from DeGrove (1992. equitable. 1973. In Growth management: Keeping on target? Douglas Porter. DC: Urban Land Institute. the Adirondack Park Agency has survived substantially intact since 1971 and has made great strides toward the protection of wetlands and wild and scenic rivers. and environmentally sound than smaller development. They rebut the claims made by liberal reformers. The authors conclude that a select group of liberal reformers closely aligned with large-scale development capital— including Fred Bosselman. Growth management in Rhode Island: A lively experiment. Environmental and Urban Issues 21.” 268.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 ple of the evolving partnership approach is the state Department of Community Affairs’ willingness to negotiate with local governments with regard to comprehensive plan compliance. He notes that “an unlikely coalition of disparate interests wrote and secured passage of [these] three laws that completely restructured municipal planning and implementation” in Rhode Island (p. MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. More than half of the land is privately owned but regulated by the Adirondack Park Land Use and Development Plan. Vermont’s General Assembly approved the Capability and Development Plan (Act 85). Wallis tells the history of events in Florida’s growth management program from 1971 to 1991. the Urban Land Institute. and floating zones. The author concludes that the flaw in the partnership is the lack of adequate financing to meet the concurrency mandate. The author describes these three elements of Florida’s Downloaded from jpl. transfer of development rights. 2013 .

Chapter 3 of this book describes state growth management laws. This publication provides a status report on the implementation of Washington State’s growth management program. . This article investigates the records of compliance by Wisconsin counties with the state’s mandate (i. rural character. 1997. Part 1 describes the Growth Management Act of 1990. Concurrency: Evolution and impacts of an infrastructure and growth management policy. James B. The authors note there was initial resistance from counties to the state mandate. These laws represent a loss of local autonomy and seriously limit the powers of local governments. Governor Booth Gardner appointed a seventeenmember Growth Strategies Commission to develop the framework for adopting a growth management statute. 275. 1990. 276. recommends a system for strengthened and coordinated local. and dispute resolution. which were adopted in 1990 and 1991. The final report was influen- Downloaded from jpl. 271. Trade and Economic Development) about how local governments can prepare local plan elements that meet state standards. All but two of the focus cities employ urban growth boundaries. Weitz. They also sometimes empower cities with new authority to manage growth and improve quality of life. and Washington). Maine. Almost 150 cities and counties have adopted growth management plans in accordance with the state’s Growth Management Acts. livable communities. CT: Praeger. and hence its purpose became one of tackling some of the tough growth issues that had not been fully addressed in the 1990 legislation. The final report of the commission was not completed until after adoption of the first Growth Management Act in Washington State in 1990. Bruce. Wallis finds that few of the councils are widely respected by their localities. 1997a. The commission issued a final report consisting of two parts. [The report finds that many local governments have reduced permitting time under 1995 legislation to combine growth management and environmental laws. Jerry. The authors briefly describe programs in Washington State and Oregon and highlight the use of urban growth boundaries there and concurrency management in Florida. This guidebook is one representative example of the many publications of the Washington State Department of Community Development (now Department of Community. Department of Community Development. industrial lands. spending and assistance. Final report: A growth strategy for Washington State. Olympia. Part 2 provides goals and discusses state planning. 2013 . Vermont. This final report represents the concluding work of a three-year regulatory reform effort in Washington State. Trade and Economic Development. Florida. three of which are subject to state growth management laws. Witt.e. agriculture. 274. and Washington. affordable housing. Washington State Department of Community Development. In 1989. The report provides an overview of the acts and discusses substantive issues that include population trends. 277. and sanitary controls for unincorporated shorelands. Water Resources Act of 1966) that counties adopt and administer zoning. and League of Women Voters of Washington. There is a consensus among the Land Use Study Commission members that a consolidated land use code is needed. Washington State Department of Community. 1998. The author offers an evaluation of the four state programs based on a content analysis of state laws and administrative rules. Trade and Economic Development. Georgia. Chicago: American Planning Association. Sprawl busting: Programs to guide growth. Oregon. WA: Washington State Department of Community. Growth management: It’s beginning to take shape. Olympia. Final report.sagepub. Westport. subdivision. Georgia. nine states had adopted comprehensive statewide growth management laws (Hawaii. and development predictability. Public Works Management and Policy 2. Weatherby. and suggests ways to ensure compliance with the 1990 act. 278. and Kathleen Peroff. WA: Department of Community. Rhode Island. 1977. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 43. and state planning. addresses substantive issues. Seattle.] The report also discusses the state’s three regional Growth Management Hearings Boards and outlines some of the next steps needed to facilitate greater implementation. but there is not the statewide consensus necessary to support its preparation and adoption. Emphasis is placed on activities and programs that attempt to mitigate sprawl. The urban West: Managing growth and decline. Making your comprehensive plan a reality: A capital facilities plan preparation guide. and Stephanie L. WA: Washington State Growth Strategies Commission. transportation. Weber. New Jersey. Washington State Land Use Study Commission. As of April 1991. The book includes sidebars that highlight the author’s experience in three states. With regard to the state’s Regional Planning Councils.. 273. Olympia.324 Journal of Planning Literature tial in adoption of the follow-up growth management statute by the Washington State legislature in 1991. The final report has eighty-nine pages and fifteen chapters. Trade and Economic Development.com by guest on January 31. and he suggests that the Water Management Districts might play a stronger role as both DeGrove (1984) and Pelham (1979) have suggested previously. Washington State Growth Strategies Commission. This article provides an overview of the concept of concurrency as an infrastructure management tool and urban system and the actions and issues surrounding their implementation in Florida. Local government response to state-mandated land use laws. Oregon. 1: 51-65. 272. The author provides a structural analysis of the evolution of state-sponsored land use planning in four states: Florida. capital facilities. Forthcoming. WA: Growth Management Division. but most counties have established administrative enforcement structures and controls that exceed minimum state standards. 1993.. regional. 4: 352-60. The chapter continues with an analysis of growth management in ten cities in the West. 1994. economic strengths.

Journal of Planning Literature 12. Although focused on regional governance and regional planning.sagepub. concurrency policies may lead to unintended consequences. Land Use Law and Zoning Digest 49. “Contiguous development is an integral but underemphasized characteristic of the ‘compact’ urban form promoted in Oregon and elsewhere” (p. such as contributing to low-density sprawl at the urban fringe. Three previous attempts at developing state growth strategies had little success. some of which are also provided here. 1998. About Growth: A Quarterly Publication about Growth Management (Fall): 2. Paul. the Pinelands Commission. West describes how growth strategies evolved in Georgia and explains roles and responsibilities under the state’s Planning Act of 1989. 1989. In The law of planning and zoning. Journal of the American Planning Association 64. 2: 3-9. and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. capital improvement programming and budgeting. The subject index to this annotated bibliography indicates that thirty citations. . Downloaded from jpl. Steve.com by guest on January 31. 3: 15-27. James H. The bibliography also provides an index by state and regional jurisdictions and regional planning organizations. Weitz. The evolution of growth management in Georgia. Toward a model statutory plan element: Transportation. 3: 361-92. and Ethan Seltzer. 1992. who is the executive director of the Atlanta Regional Commission. He highlights future opportunities to coordinate local comprehensive plans. 281. Concurrency policies can effectively supplement development impact fees and land use regulations now being implemented by many local governments. They also provide a literature review on urban development patterns and principles of contiguous development. Jerry. State requirements for transportation elements of comprehensive plans should provide for flexibility and avoid trying to apply one set of requirements to all local governments. The authors present empirical data from case studies of development inside urban growth boundaries completed during 1995 in Oregon. and Terry Moore.. 4.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 growth management policy. Rathkopf and Daren A Rathkopf. and Washington and refers to efforts in other states. 1997b. The author concludes with other observations about what made the Growth Strategies Commission’s effort successful. Arden H. Whorton. 286. St. pertain to growth management. Wells. The strategy developed by the commission succeeded because of leadership by the governor and because the growth strategy maintains local home rule and decision authority. with Edward H. Trade and Economic Development. Environmental and Urban Issues 17. Planning Advisory Service Report no. and a concurrency management system. local land use regulations often lacked a focus. The author is the assistant director of Washington State’s Department of Community. Case study data show that urban development patterns inside urban growth boundaries have largely met desired principles of urban form. 279. Environmental and Urban Issues 22. 282. Weitz. The author describes approaches to transportation planning in Oregon. CPL Bibliography 341/342. eds. but GMA has required countywide planning policies and growth management plans that have helped local governments develop regulations according to policies about how development will occur. 2013 . 480/481. Innovative strategic planning: The Georgia model. Joseph W. The author. Regional planning and regional governance in the United States: 1979-1996. Governor Joe Frank Harris appointed a Growth Strategies Commission in 1987 and made development of a growth strategy the top priority of his second administration. Concurrency consists of four elements: planning. then concludes with encouraging words about the prospects of the program because of the interest of Governor Zell Miller. Ziegler Jr. 1998. Harry. 1996. the latter including the California Coastal Commission. West. 2: 1. 432). an adequate public-facilities ordinance. Letter to the editor. 280. Also published in Modernizing state planning statutes: The Growing Smart working papers. Jr. Jerry. which is contrary to past expert judgements. 2. Development inside urban growth boundaries: Oregon’s empirical evidence of contiguous urban form. However. Florida. Environmental and Urban Issues 18. 1995. Chicago: American Planning Association. 285. This working paper describes issues and alternatives regarding the preparation of the local transportation elements of comprehensive plans. The article includes a list of potential contents for transportation elements in state laws or local plans. GMA is foundation for land use regulatory reform. this bibliography provides some abstracts of lit- 325 erature pertaining to state growth management programs. Prior to adoption of the state’s Growth Management Act (GMA). The authors provide a list of urban growth management tools that Oregon has considered for inclusion in its growth management program. 284. MN: West. 1996. but much more can be accomplished in Oregon. Georgia’s approach includes “carrots” (incentives) instead of “sticks” (penalties) to ensure that local governments will plan. Wickersham. . traces the history of growth accommodation and management in Georgia with a focus on the Atlanta region. 1998. 1: 15-23. 4: 424-40. The author contends that Georgia’s planning culture has historically used a “minimalist approach” in which a strong tradition of local home rule has avoided state intrusion into local land use matters. The state-appointed Land Use Study Commission is working to find ways to integrate environmental and land use planning laws.. Vol. Vol. the Cape Cod Commission. This letter takes issue with an article by David Callies (1994b in this bibliography) on the quiet revolution after twenty-five years. Results show that development patterns tend to be contiguous to the urban centers rather than dispersed. Statewide and regional land use controls. 283.

The author also defines consistency and writes about the consistency of local plans and regulations with statewide and regional goals. Part 3 describes the “persistent failings” of Euclidean zoning. Areas of Critical State Concern and Developments of Regional Impact in Florida. the Massachusetts act for Martha’s Vineyard. V.326 Journal of Planning Literature The authors content that state planning has its evolution in the conservation movement and local and regional planning efforts of the early twentieth century. DC: Urban Land Institute. Rosenbaum. and L. Harvard Environmental Law Review 18: 489-548. New Jersey. Mann and Miles. 35 (1993) Mandatory local zoning in 1974. 236 (1976) Citizens Growth Management Act that failed to reach the ballot in 1998 Growing Smarter legislation of 1998 Mandatory local comprehensive planning legislation in 1971. 51 (1999). 25A-12). 2 (1997). He finds that Florida is now in the process of phasing out its Development of Regional Impact program (p. 25 (1996) CALIFORNIA. growth boundaries. 170 (1979) Unconditional local planning mandate. Maryland. . Evolution of planning at the state level.. DiMento. Bosselman and Callies. Berke et al. 288. Burby et al. 48 (1998) Critical areas legislation that failed in 1975. Maine. Vol. Florida. 4. He also discusses growth boundaries and concurrency. 67 (1988). Hawaii’s state land use program. 69 (1986b). Oregon. 490). Bohlen et al. 21 (1994). DeGrove. Cobb. Vermont’s State Land Use and Development Act of 1970 (Act 250). noting that local governments are often unable to deal with the effects of major development projects and protect critical resources. Rhode Island. 37 (1997). Maine. 287. Wilson.. 64 (1992). California.. or Euclidean zoning. In the second part of this lengthy “note. Rosenbaum. ALABAMA Conditionally mandatory local planning. the author compares state statutes with various provisions of the American Law Institute’s Model Land Development Code. 1960s. Techniques in application. Nevada. Oregon. Burby and May. Leonard U. In part 4. Wickersham finds that there are nine states that have “adopted programs attempting to reassert state control over land development policies and reconcile the often conflicting goals of environmental protection and economic development” (p.” the author describes the dominant model of land use regulation. DiMento. Cobb.. 79 (1992) ALASKA Joint State-Federal Natural Resources and Land Use Planning Commission. Maryland. New Jersey. Bollens. Part 5 examines the “planning consistency model. Dia- Downloaded from jpl. 1950s. Maine. and 1970s. 70 (1984).. Washington.. DeGrove. The planning consistency model overcomes the problems of fragmentation and parochialism inherent in the Euclidean zoning model. “Between 1968 and 1974. The nine states with “planning consistency model” statutes are Florida. Davidson. In Management and control of growth. 26 (1993).sagepub. Abbott et al. and Washington. DiMento. The author cites or discusses many different programs: New York’s statute for the Adirondacks region. 58 (1991). The author begins with a discussion of the limitations of Euclidean zoning. 79 (1992) Conditionally mandatory local planning. 52 (1993). He concludes by addressing substantive growth management requirements such as concurrency. Burby et al. and Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission for unorganized territories. 35 (1993). Vermont. Colton and DiTullio. and dispute resolution. 27 (1992).. Connerly and Muller. Bosselman and Callies. 22 (1996). 236 (1976) ARKANSAS. Rosenbaum. 489). 48 (1998) ARIZONA. The final part of the note compares the strengths and weaknesses of the Model Code and the planning consistency models of growth management controls. 1978. Georgia. and Vermont passed statutes that shifted considerable regulatory power over land use to the state or regional level” (p. Burby et al. New York. 2013 . 1940s. 31 (1971) Mandatory local comprehensive planning (larger cities). They summarize state planning efforts in the 1930s. 48 (1988) Local governments may regulate without preparing a comprehensive plan. 66 (1989). and Washington adopted new statutes during the second wave. Rhode Island. The quiet revolution continues: The emerging new model for state growth management statutes.com by guest on January 31. 35 (1993) State land classification exists and is used for planning purposes only. 236 (1976) Mandatory local comprehensive planning (counties only). Massachusetts. 519). He describes statewide and regional land use regulation.. Watkins. Cobb. 35 (1993). VI. California and Nevada’s planning compact for the Lake Tahoe region. exemplified by the Oregon statute” (p. The author notes that Georgia. Burby et al. 1994. The author concludes that the Model Code’s chief shortcoming is its lack of comprehensive state and regional planning. Berke and French. INDEX OF PROGRAMS OR LEGISLATION BY STATE This is one chapter out a five-volume treatise on the law of planning and zoning in the United States. 31 (1971). 79 (1992) Adoption of zoning ordinances without prior adoption of comprehensive plans is prohibited.

48 (1998) Local governments may regulate without preparing a comprehensive plan. 72 (1986). Rosenbaum. Dean. Cobb. Kundell et al. 256 (1984) California-Nevada Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and Regional Planning Compact (1969) Mandatory local zoning in 1970. Burby and May. 242 (1992). Bosselman and Callies. 107 (1986) Tahoe Regional Planning Agency bistate compact revised in 1980. 54 (1978) Critical-areas legislation in 1974. 101 (1991). 33 (1991). 95 (1996a). 94 (1997). Godschalk. Rosenbaum. 194 (1995b). Wickersham. 236 (1976) Land Use Act of 1974 Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act (House Bill 1034). 31 (1971). Mazmanian and Sabatier. 75 (1991). Odland. Strong. or. DeGrove and Metzger. 175 (1983). 201 (1995). 35 (1993) Adoption of zoning ordinances without prior adoption of comprehensive plans is prohibited. Meeks. 31 (1971). Porter. 73 (1993). 64 (1992). DeGrove. Cobb. Nelson. 125 (1976). 143 (1989). Durant et al. 79 (1992). Patton and Patton. Burby et al. Moss. 227 (1991b). Burby et al. Berke et al. Salkin.. 79 (1992). Weitz and Seltzer. Carter. 192 (1978). 46 (1974). Nathan and Barusch. Diamond and Noonan. 256 (1984) Unconditional local planning mandate. Fischer. D’Ambrosi. Rubino and Wagner.. 93 (1985) California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was reconstituted in 1973. Fulton. 216 (1979). 68 (1986a). 188 (1995). Morris.. Kundell et al. 241 (1993) Coastal Zone Act of 1971 State land classification exists and is legally enforceable. 69 (1986b). Florida Department of Community Affairs. 93 (1985) State Urban Strategy in 1978. Fulton. 73 (1993). 58 (1991). 55 (1976). Fulton.. Bollens. 189 (1977). Burby et al. 107 (1986). 37 (1997) Local government planning mandate in 1955. Mann and Miles. 256 (1984) Coastal Act of 1976. Godschalk. 189 (1977). Bosselman and Callies. Stone and Seymour. 2013 . 172 (1994). Fischer. 79 (1992) San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission of 1965 California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency in 1967. DeHaven-Smith. Charlier. 60 (1996). 22 (1996). 173 (1993). Ndubisi and Dyer. Kaiser and Godschalk. Mandelker et al. Moss. DeGrove. 238 (1972). 170 (1979) State policies plan designating development areas. 242 (1992) State land classification being developed and would be legally enforceable.. 242 (1992) Land Use Act of 1970 Mandatory local comprehensive planning legislation in 1972. 81 (1980). 78 (1996). 90 (1987). Connerly and Muller. 107 (1986). 98 (1989). DiMento. 79 (1992) Unconditional local planning mandate. 151 (1989). 197 (1992a). Callies. Salkin. DiMento. 37 (1997). 63 (1993). Quality of Life Act of 1988. 170 (1979) Statewide land use planning law. Salkin. 97 (1991). 26 (1993). 35 (1993). 194 (1995b). 101 (1991).. Godschalk.. 101 (1991). Davidson. Cobb. 52 (1993).. 62 (1994). DiMento. 21 (1994). 143 (1989) Mandatory local comprehensive planning (Sussex County only). 78 (1996). 193 (1992). 70 (1984) FLORIDA. 288 (1996) Local government planning mandate in 1937. Salkin. 236 (1976) Coastal Zone Conservation Act in 1972. Nelson and Duncan. Morris. 15 (1990). 48 (1998) COLORADO. Kelly. Audirac et al. 61 (1996).. 48 (1998) DELAWARE. 189 (1977). 238 (1972). 180 (1990a). DiMento. 67 (1988). Deyle and Smith. DiMento. 101 (1991). 86 (1964) Mandatory local comprehensive planning legislation in 1965. Council of State Governments.. 169 (1978). Cobb. 255 (1993). 77 (1998). 100 (1993). Fulton. 157 (1998). Rosenbaum. Berke and French. 236 (1976) Adoption of zoning ordinances without prior adoption of comprehensive plans is prohibited. 241 (1993). Diamond and Noonan. Leo. 213 (1975). 67 (1988). 79 (1992) CONNECTICUT. Healy. 126 (1979). 35 (1993). DeGrove and Juergensmeyer. Nelson. Burby and May. Porter. 188 (1995). Strong. 284 (1998). 13 (1966). 78 (1996) Conditionally mandatory local planning. 35 (1993). 205 (1991). 48 (1998) 327 Growth policies draft. DiMento. 222 (1997). Brumback.com by guest on January 31. DeGrove and Metzger. Kanarek and Baldassare. May. 48 (1998). Burby et al. Peirce. Ensweiler. 187 (1996). 107 (1986). Nelson.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 mond and Noonan. 241 (1993). Dyckman. Godschalk. 96 (1996b). 138 (1995). Healy and Rosenburg. 102 (1992). 224 (1996b) Comprehensive State Development Plan. Cobb. Moss. 151 (1989). Pelham. Mann and Miles. 83 (1993). Strong. 198 (1992b). DeGrove. 236 (1976) Conditionally mandatory local planning.sagepub. 81 (1980). 66 (1989). Rosenbaum. 214 (1998). 108 (1975). 41 (1994b). 70 (1984). 70 (1984). 195 (1995b). 47 (1991). Gale. Rubino and Wagner. Pelham. Gover- Downloaded from jpl. Durant et al. American Society of Planning Officials. DiMento. 27 (1992). Burby et al. 83 (1993). 76 (1984). 35 (1993).. 216 (1979). Kelly.. DeGrove. 79 (1992). 66 (1989). 67 (1988). Porter. 79 (1992). 139 (1996).

Bollens. Wickersham. 160 (1992). Kaiser and Godschalk. Stroud and O’Connell. Wickersham. Starnes. 272 (1993). 193 (1992). McDowell. 200 (1990b).. 118 (1988).. 61 (1996). 201 (1995). 157 (1998). 153 (1992). 251 (1986) Revision to State Land Development Plan adopted 1989. 188 (1995). Council of State Governments. 214 (1998). 105 (1996a). Knaap. 189 (1977). 94 (1997) Adoption of zoning ordinances without prior adoption of comprehensive plans is prohibited. Kelly. 153 (1992). 222 (1997). 26 (1993). 143 (1989). Salkin. 35 (1993).. 227 (1991b). Florida Department of Community Affairs. 277 (1994) Land Use Law (Act 187) of 1961 State land classification exists and is legally enforceable. May. DiMento. 31 (1971). 41 (1994b). West. 160 (1992). Cobb. 27 (1992). 112 (1988). Durant et al. 146 (1998b). Morris. Growth Management Act of 1985) State Land Development Plan adopted 1986. 79 (1992) Unconditional local planning mandate. 227 (1991b).. 2013 . Porter. 48 (1998). 200 (1990b). Gale. Healy and Rosenburg. Meeks. 265 (1993). Godschalk. 54 (1978) State Comprehensive Plan (Act 100) of 1978 Adoption of zoning ordinances without prior adoption of comprehensive plans is prohibited. 164 (1994). 225 (1993). 120 (1988).. 252 (1993). 277 (1994). Matthews and Schneider. Liberty. Oliver. Porter. Florida Department of Community Affairs. Healy. 58 (1991). Kelly. Morris. Kundell et al. 224 (1996b). Kundell et al. Knaap. 180 (1990a). 142 (1993).. Bohlen et al. 177 (1986). 201 (1995). 224 (1996b). 138 (1995). Liou and Dicker. Peirce. Durant et al. Merten. 174 (1996). Weatherby and Witt. 217 (1985). 64 (1992). Weitz. 241 (1993). 53 (1990). Nelson.. D’Ambrosi. Rosenbaum. 70 (1984). 188 (1995). 195 (1995b). Florida Department of Community Affairs. Callies. Bollens. Kundell et al. Ndubisi and Dyer. Henderson. 20 (1998). 43 (1984). 14 (1997) Unconditional local planning mandate. 73 (1993). 183 (1997). 35 (1993). Pelham. 257 (1996). 180 (1990a). DeGrove. 142 (1993).. Oliver. 259 (1986). 172 (1994). O’Connell. 78 (1996). 151 (1989) Vital Areas Act failed in 1974. 225 (1993). 238 (1972). Salkin. 114. Patton and Patton. Diamond and Noonan. Mandelker et al. Cobb. 25 Downloaded from jpl. Starnes. 215 (1993). 260 (1994). Governor’s Growth Strategies Commission. Callies. Porter. 173 (1993). 133 (1993). Davidson. 27 (1992). 171 (1994). 187 (1996). 278 (1997a. 48 (1998) HAWAII. Moss. 42 (1993). 277. 206 (1992). Stroud. Kaiser and Godschalk. DiMento. 48 (1998) GEORGIA. Lewis. Association of County Commissioners of Georgia. Patton and Patton. 127 (1996). 289 (1994) Critical Areas Act failed in 1973. 193 (1992). 252 (1993). Nelson and Duncan. 60 (1996). 286 (1992). 145 (1998a). 213 (1975). 206 (1992). 277 (1994). Salkin. Nelson. 205 (1991). Bosselman and Callies. 232 (1987). 138 (1995). Leo. DeGrove. 48 (1998). 195 (1995b).. 55 (1976). Kelly. 222 (1997). DiMento. 143 (1989). Davidson. 170 (1979) Growth Policies Resolution of 1975. Wallis. Cobb. 79 (1992). 26 (1993). Cooper and Davis. 40 (1994a). Guskind. 216 (1979). 180 (1990a). Reed. 213 (1975). Lewis. 241 (1993). 197 (1992a). 253 (1986). 226 (1991a). 151 (1989). Stuart.sagepub. 146 (1998b). Stroud. 106 (1996b). 201 (1995).. 1989 Rule 9J-5 of 1986. Pelham et al. Liberty. 200 (1990b). 162 (1992).. 241 (1993). Odland. Burby et al. Innes. Berke. 190 (1974a). Guskind. Lawlor. 223 (1996a). 41 (1994b). 48 (1998) nor’s Task Force on Urban Growth Patterns. Harris. 151 (1989). 204 (1986).com by guest on January 31. Myers. Siemon and Larsen. 69 (1986b). 189 (1977). Young & Company. 195 (1995b). Leo.. Lawlor. Turner. Whorton. 197 (1992a). 1997b). 14 (1997). Weatherby and Witt. 286 (1994) Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 Water Resources Act of 1972 Land Conservation Act of 1972 Comprehensive Planning Act of 1972 Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 State Comprehensive Plan of 1978 Regional Planning Council Act of 1980 State and Regional Planning Act of 1984 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (or. Kundell et al. Nelson and Duncan. 126 (1979). 187 (1996). Starnes. James Duncan and Associates et al. The Service Delivery Strategy Act of 1997.328 Journal of Planning Literature (1996). 257 (1996). Nelson. 248 (1985). 79 (1992) Unconditional local planning mandate. 214 (1998). 183 (1997). 60 (1996). 133 (1993). (1989). 266 (1990a). Peirce. Burby et al. Rubino and Wagner. 157 (1998) Sustainable Communities Demonstration Project. 63 (1993). Meeks. 224 (1996b). 138 (1995). Moss. Mann and Miles. Weatherby and Witt. 63 (1993). 134 (1992). 151 (1989). 58 (1991). 83 (1993). 98 (1989) Growth Management Act of 1993. McCahill. Dean. 142 (1993). 83 (1993). Dean. 151 (1989). 102 (1992). Meeks. 236 (1976) Georgia Planning Act of 1989 (House Bill 215) House Bill 489. 176 (1974). DeGrove and Metzger. Nelson and Duncan. McKay. May and Burby. 267 (1990b). 136 (1989). 108 (1975). 107 (1986). Georgia Department of Community Affairs. 125 (1976).. 162 (1992). 194 (1995a). Kundell et al. 178 (1991). 80 (1980). 61 (1996). Cobb. Association of County Commissioners of Georgia. 118 (1988). Cobb. 169 (1978). Merten. Kaiser and Godschalk. 287 (1989). Ndubisi and Dyer. 285 (1996). Innes.

236 (1976) Draft land use policies paper. 35 (1993) Adoption of zoning ordinances without prior adoption of comprehensive plans is prohibited. Bohlen et al. 225 (1993). 231 (1992) State land classification exists and is legally enforceable. 224 (1996b). 73 (1993). Rand. 151 (1989). 183 (1997). Kaiser and Godschalk. Cobb. Cobb. 201 (1995). 152 (1988). 177 (1986). Patton and Patton. Council of State Governments. Guskind. Burby et al. 79 (1992) Repeal of the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act of 1988 in 1991 Revised statute partially restoring the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act of 1988 in 1992 Conditionally mandatory local planning. 81 (1980) New state planning enabling law of 1991. Knaap. Godschalk. 4 (1991). 224 (1996b).. 132 (1993). 231 (1992) Shoreland Zoning Act of 1971. 257 (1996). 225 (1993). 236 (1976) KANSAS. 101 (1991). Porter. Weatherby and Witt. Cobb. Bosselman and Callies. Peirce. 236 (1976) Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law of 1984 Downloaded from jpl. Dean. 41 (1994b). Dean. 250 (1998) Critical areas legislation failed in 1974. Callies. Burby et al. DeGrove. 153 (1992).. 48 (1998) IOWA Critical-areas legislation tabled in Senate in 1975. 170 (1979) Vital areas legislation. Wickersham. 101 (1991). Smutney.com by guest on January 31. DeGrove and Metzger. 189 (1977). 64 (1992). Leo. 27 (1992). Noonan and Moran. DiMento. 50 (1998). 54 (1978) Mandatory local zoning of 1975. 27 (1992). Rosenbaum. Fulton. Adams. Kelly. 236 (1976) Large-scale development siting legislation failed in 1975. Rosenbaum. 79 (1992) Unconditional local planning mandate. 195 (1995b). 35 (1993). 61 (1996). Cobb. 242 (1992) Mandatory local comprehensive planning (counties of 300. 58 (1991). Nelson. 48 (1998) KENTUCKY. 83 (1993). Callies. DiMento. 241 (1993). Durant et al. 214 (1998). Morris. Connerly and Muller. Peirce. 201 (1995). 157 (1998).CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 IDAHO. Kundell et al. 222 (1997). Salkin. 138 (1995). 231 (1992). 26 (1993). 107 (1986). 151 (1989) Land Use Regulation Commission. 78 (1996). 19 (1992) Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act of 1988 Adoption of zoning ordinances without prior adoption of comprehensive plans is prohibited.sagepub. 187 (1996). Bohlen et al. 241 (1993). Rand. Rand. 203 (1996). 52 (1993). Merten. 236 (1976) Mandatory local comprehensive planning legislation of 1975. DiMento. 48 (1998) MARYLAND. Lawlor. Kaiser and Godschalk. 2013 . Moss. Rosenbaum. 60 (1996). 48 (1998).000 or more. Kundell et al. 118 (1988). 41 (1994b). Rosenbaum. Beckley. DiMento. Bollens. 48 (1998) LOUISIANA Conditionally mandatory local planning. Laitin. Lawlor. Davidson. 153 (1992). 35 (1993) Local governments may regulate without preparing a comprehensive plan. Cobb. Cohen and McAbee-Cummings. 79 (1992). 236 (1976) Large-scale development siting legislation tabled in Senate in 1975. 35 (1993). 79 (1992) Unconditional local planning mandate. 277 (1994). 146 (1998b). 236 (1976) Mandatory local comprehensive planning legislation tabled in Senate in 1975. Wickersham. Knaap. 25 (1996) Mandated local planning. Cobb. 79 (1992). Nelson. DeGrove. 227 (1991b)... Burby et al. Cobb. 102 (1992). 35 (1993). 288 (1996). 222 (1997). DiMento. 138 (1995). 288 (1994) Critical areas legislation in 1974. 79 (1992) Conditionally mandatory local planning. 236 (1976) Adoption of zoning ordinances without prior adoption of comprehensive plans is prohibited. 60 (1996). 142 (1993)... Rosenbaum. 197 (1992a). 48 (1998) 329 INDIANA Mandatory local comprehensive planning (counties containing first-class cities only). 26 (1993). DiMento. Porter. 25 (1996). 214 (1998). 238 (1972). DiMento. 213 (1975). 31 (1971). Stroud. 231 (1992) Land Use Regulation Commission of 1971. Diamond and Noonan. Rosenbaum. 133 (1993). 103 (1992). Nelson and Duncan. Moss. 198 (1992a) MAINE.. 189 (1977). Diamond and Noonan. Meeks. Fulton. Rubino and Wagner. Rand. Gale. McDowell. Burby et al. Salkin. Nelson and Duncan. 63 (1993). 78 (1996). Rosenbaum. Mann and Miles. 48 (1998). 180 (1990a). 188 (1995). 79 (1992). Burby et al... Gale and Hart. 289 (1994) Site Location of Development Act of 1969. 146 (1998b). Rosenbaum. 64 (1992). Salkin. Bollens. Howitt. Innes. DiMento. Nelson. 62 (1994). 79 (1992).

. 107 (1986). Nelson. 157 (1998). Davidson. 143 (1989). Godschalk. Cobb. 107 (1986). Oliver. 55 (1976). 236 (1976) Conditionally mandatory local planning. Weitz and Seltzer. Bohlen et al.. Rosenbaum. Leo. 288 (1996) Nevada Tahoe Regional Planning Agency of 1968. DeGrove. 67 (1988). Resource Protection. 58 (1991). 170 (1979) Comprehensive plan. 48 (1998) MASSACHUSETTS. 177 (1986). Bohlen et al. 194 (1995b). D’Ambrosi.. 31 (1971). DeGrove. if adopted. Cobb. 288 (1996) Wetland Protection Program of 1963 Zoning Appeals Law of 1969 Martha’s Vineyard Commission Act of 1974 Statewide growth policies proposal. 216 (1979). 48 (1998) MINNESOTA. 187 (1996). Morris. DeGrove. 31 (1971). 284 (1998). 48 (1998) State land classification exists for planning purposes only. Lawlor. Bollens. 187 (1996). 28 (1990).. 48 (1998) NEBRASKA. is the controlling instrument in land use decisions. Rosenbaum. 2013 . 45 (1996). Morris.000 or more). 81 (1980). 2 (1997). Pelham. 157 (1998). Salkin.000 or more). 206 (1992). Cobb. 79 (1992) Unconditional local planning mandate. DiMento. Cape Cod Commission.. and Planning Act of 1992 (House Bill 1195) Conditionally mandatory local planning mandate. Abbott et al. 242 (1992). Council of State Governments. 79 (1992) Mandatory local comprehensive planning legislation of 1975. 201 (1995). Bosselman and Callies. 48 (1998) MONTANA. 188 (1995). Rosenbaum. Strong. Kundell et al. Cobb. Peirce. 157 (1998) Shorelines management law of 1970. Rosenbaum. 20 (1998). 226 (1991a) Mandatory local comprehensive planning legislation of 1975. 236 (1976) Mandatory local comprehensive planning (cities and counties of 15. 236 (1976) Tahoe Regional Planning Agency bistate compact revision (Congress 1980). 254 (1984) Unconditional local planning mandate. 79 (1992) Conditionally mandatory local planning. 79 (1992) Growth and Chesapeake Bay Protection Act of 1991 (or. 238 (1972). 35 (1993) Unconditional local planning mandate. Bosselman and Callies. Weitz and Seltzer. Cobb. 216 (1979) Twin Cities Metropolitan Council established (1967) Critical-areas regulation of 1973. Wickersham. 25 (1996). 81 (1980). Kundell et al. Nelson and Duncan. Porter. Rosenbaum. Rubino and Wagner. 48 (1998) MICHIGAN. 67 (1988). 216 (1979). Meeks.sagepub. 67 (1988). DiMento. 29 (1994). 54 (1978) Cape Cod Commission Act of 1989 Mandatory local comprehensive planning (cities of 10. Rosenbaum. 241 (1993). Leo. 214 (1998).. 236 (1976) Mandatory local comprehensive planning legislation in 1973. 2 (1997). Mann and Miles. Nelson. Strong. 31 (1971). McDowell. Pelham. 189 (1977). 48 (1998) NEV ADA. 284 (1998). DiMento. DiMento. 151 (1989). Moss. 236 (1976) Adoption of zoning ordinances without prior adoption of comprehensive plans is prohibited. 189 (1977). 25 (1996). DiMento. Kelly. 236 (1976) Downloaded from jpl. 238 (1972) Conditionally mandatory local planning. Cobb. Bosselman and Callies. Burby et al. Cobb. 79 (1992). 153 (1992). Abbott et al..330 Journal of Planning Literature MISSISSIPPI Conditionally mandatory local planning. 35 (1993) Mandatory local zoning of 1973. 236 (1976) Adoption of zoning ordinances without prior adoption of comprehensive plans is prohibited. DiMento. Moss. 2020 bill) failed Economic Growth. 188 (1995). Burby et al. Leo. Cobb. Cobb. Rosenbaum. 151 (1989). Rubino and Wagner. Berke. 48 (1998) MISSOURI Conditionally mandatory local planning. 26 (1993). 48 (1998) NEW HAMPSHIRE. Rosenbaum. Bollens and Caves. 254 (1984) Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and Regional Planning Compact of 1969 Critical-areas legislation in 1973. Meeks. 180 (1990a). 27 (1992). Wickersham. 236 (1976) Mandatory local zoning in 1975. Pelham. 180 (1990a).. Godschalk. 194 (1995b) Critical-areas legislation failed in 1975.com by guest on January 31.

Merten. Bollens. 220 (1996). 186 (1981). 73 (1993). Owens. 69 (1986b). 64 (1992). 2 (1997).sagepub. 62 (1994). Davidson. Cobb. Berke. Graham. 3 (1994). 241 (1993). 189 (1977). Burchell. 153 (1992). 60 (1996). Nolon. DeGrove. 81 (1980). 41 (1994b). 289 (1994) Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission of 1968. Abbott et al. 79 (1992). 157 (1998). 57 (1986). Lawrence and Lussenhop. Callies. 48 (1998) 331 NEW JERSEY. Porter. 111 (1994) Adoption of zoning ordinances without prior adoption of comprehensive plans is prohibited. 27 (1992). DiMento. Salkin. Meeks. 277 (1994). Burby and May. 221 (1988). Fulton. 79 (1992). 225 (1993). 183 (1997).. 144 (1989). Salkin. 27 (1992).. DiMento.. Gordon. 26 (1993). Morgan and Shonkwiler. 48 (1998) selman and Callies. 201 (1995). Weatherby and Witt. Berke et al. 88 (1995b). Cogan Owens Cogan. Lawlor. D’Ambrosi. 288 (1996) Adirondack Park Agency Act of 1971 Local governments may regulate without preparing a comprehensive plan. Liberty. 138 (1995). 111 (1994). Popper. 167 (1993). Gale. 180 (1990a). Dean. 109 (1988). 216 (1979). 52 (1993). 58 (1991). DiMento. 55 (1976). 194 (1995b). Lawlor. EcoNorthwest et al. King and Harris. DeGrove and Metzger.. 257 (1996).com by guest on January 31. 79 (1992) OHIO Conditionally mandatory local planning. 107 (1986). 87 (1995a). 133 (1993). 20 (1998). 101 (1991). 60 (1996). Kundell et al. 74 (1980). Porter. DeGrove and Stroud. 236 (1976) New Jersey State Pinelands Protection Act of 1979 State Development and Redevelopment Act (or State Planning Act) of 1985 Preliminary State Development and Redevelopment Plan. Salkin. Moss. 31 (1971). Bollens. Downloaded from jpl. Platt.. Peirce. 39 (1993). Epling. Lawlor. 83 (1993). Innes. 67 (1988). 27 (1992). 242 (1992) NORTH CAROLINA. Rosenbaum. 79 (1992) Optional local comprehensive planning. Cobb. Harris. DeGrove. 268 (1986). DiMento. Callies. 284 (1998). 101 (1991). 67 (1988). 216 (1979) Coastal Area Facility Review Act of 1973.. 172 (1994). 67 (1988). Wickersham. Connerly and Muller. Pelham. 67 (1988). 153 (1992). Rosenbaum. Beckley. 118 (1988). 115 (1981). DeGrove and Metzger. prepared in 1989. Gottlieb. 180 (1990a). 25 (1996). Cobb. 49 (1997). Kundell et al. 81 (1980). Burby et al. Davis. 35 (1993). Burby et al. 165 (1981). 154 (1994). 202 (1996).. Liroff and Davis. Connerly and Muller. 242 (1992) Coastal Area Management Act of 1974 Comprehensive plan. 180 (1990a). 110 (1995). 214 (1998). 63 (1993). Kaiser and Godschalk. 238 (1972). 26 (1993). 151 (1989). 64 (1992). Abbott et al. Davidson. 212 (1985). Rubino and Wagner. 48 (1998). Council of State Governments. Luberoff. 26 (1993). 59 (1978). 92 (1989). 116 (1978). Bosselman and Callies. 153 (1992). Berke and French. Diamond and Noonan. 35 (1993)... Ulasewicz. 62 (1994). 236 (1976) Conditionally mandatory local planning. 79 (1992). 229 (1986). DeGrove. DiMento. DiMento. 48 (1998) NEW MEXICO Conditionally mandatory local planning. 2 (1997). 159 (1974). 134 (1992). May. Grant. 31 (1971). 41 (1994b). 58 (1991). 79 (1992). Communities of Place. 195 (1995b). Stroud. Gottlieb and Reilly. 242 (1992). 162 (1992). 2013 . 101 (1991). 78 (1996). 102 (1992). 227 (1991b). DeGrove. 20 (1998). Durant et al. 241 (1993). Nelson. Meeks. Durant et al. 222 (1997). 52 (1993). Weitz and Seltzer. Kundell et al. 69 (1986b). 83 (1993). Nelson and Duncan. 70 (1984). 191 (1974b). 229 (1986). 91 (1993). Pelham. 154 (1994) Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan prepared in 1994. 21 (1994). Cobb. Nelson and Duncan. D’Ambrosi. Moss. Epling. Cobb. 223 (1996b). Kaiser and Godschalk. 58 (1991). 19 (1992). Bollens. Fulton..CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 Large-scale development siting legislation failed in 1975. 173 (1993). is the controlling instrument in land use decisions. Diamond and Noonan. 194 (1995a). Davidson. Cobb. Diamond and Noonan. Meeks.. 78 (1996). 73 (1993). Abbott. Berke. 66 (1989). Daniels and Nelson. 138 (1995). 37 (1997). 91 (1993). Godschalk.. 66 (1989). 151 (1989). Guskind. Fulton. DiMento. 197 (1992a). Nelson. 201 (1995). Abbott et al. Lawrence and Lussenhop. if adopted. Bos- OREGON. 151 (1989). Leo. 48 (1998) NEW YORK. Dean. Levin et al. Myers.. Salkin. 78 (1996). 55 (1976). 79 (1992) State Land Use Advisory Committee in 1990. 22 (1996).. 70 (1984). 1 (1994). Wickersham. Bohlen et al. 189 (1977). 48 (1998) OKLAHOMA Conditionally mandatory local planning. 120 (1988). 61 (1996). Gottlieb and Reilly. 54 (1978).

160 (1992). DiMento. 242 (1992) Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act of 1994. Abbott et al. 236 (1976) Critical-areas legislation in 1973. 222 (1997). Cobb. Nelson. Ndubisi and Dyer. 151 (1989). Porter. Liberty. 150 (1992). 233 (1983). 237 (1995).332 Journal of Planning Literature RHODE ISLAND. Leo. Cobb. 169 (1978). Bohlen et al.. 129 (1993).. Fulton. Rosenbaum. 222 (1997). Patton and Patton. Knaap. Lawlor. 155 (1997). 158 (1983). Wickersham. Leonard. Cobb. Varian. 187 (1996) Local governments may regulate without preparing a comprehensive plan. Stroud and DeGrove. 128 (1994). 130 (1991a). Joint Legislative Committee on Land Use. Cobb. Leo. Weitz and Moore. 236 (1976). Kaiser and Godschalk. 142 (1993). 183 (1997). Salkin.. 101 (1991). Rothrock. Cobb. Salkin. 180 (1990a). Meeks. 242 (1992) Legislative attempt to pass regional review legislation. 151 (1989) Conditionally mandatory local planning. Cobb. Sullivan and Pelham. Morris.sagepub. DiMento. Weitz. Sullivan. 145 (1998a). Meeks. 79 (1992). Moss. 166 (1974). 2013 . 149 (1987). Pelham. Morgan and Shonkwiler. 236 (1976) Critical-areas legislation failed in 1975. 206 (1992). 148 (1990). 146 (1998b). 156 (1998). DeGrove and Metzger. Merten. 196 (1994). DiMento. 283 (1998). 201 (1995). Inc. Liberty. 131 (1991b). Lawlor. 48 (1998) Downloaded from jpl. 189 (1977). Knaap and Nelson. 62 (1994). 195 (1995b). 41 (1994b). Richard Ragatz Associates. Diamond and Noonan. 241 (1993). Rubino and Wagner. Kundell et al. 227 (1991b). 262 (1993). Knaap. 185 (1994). 238 (1972).. 180 (1990a). 48 (1998) Governor’s Task Force on Land Use. Nelson and Duncan. 25 (1996). 241 (1993). 214 (1998). 195 (1995b). 138 (1995).. 224 (1996b) Zoning Enabling Act of 1991. 127 (1996). 140 (1991). 269 (1993) Adoption of zoning ordinances without prior adoption of comprehensive plans is prohibited. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. 263 (1995) Conditionally mandatory local planning. Kasowski. Reed.. Porter. 236 (1976) Law requiring local comprehensive planning in 1978. 157 (1998). 48 (1998). 162 (1992). Berke. Leeman. 223 (1996a). 73 (1993). 157 (1998). 208 (1997). Burby et al. 261 (1994). 241 (1993).. Kelly. 153 (1992). 186 (1981). Young & Company. 277 (1994). 79 (1992) Unconditional local planning mandate. Bollens. Diamond and Noonan. 225 (1993).. 61 (1996). 48 (1998) PENNSYLV ANIA. 242 (1992). Rosenbaum. 26 (1993). Kaiser and Godschalk. Wickersham. Peirce. 147 (1994).com by guest on January 31. Burby et al. Moss. 64 (1992). 193 (1992). 153 (1992) Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act of 1988 Land Use 2010 including land capability map identifying four land use intensities in 1989. 64 (1992). Salkin. Kundell et al. 209 (1991). 161 (1996). 60 (1996). 151 (1989) Mandatory local comprehensive planning legislation in 1972. 153 (1992). 194 (1995a). Leo. 183 (1997). 48 (1998) SOUTH DAKOTA Comprehensive development plan adopted by State Planning Commission Council of State Governments of 1978 Mandatory local comprehensive planning legislation in 1974. 113 (1982). Varian. 25 (1996). Bohlen et al. 2 (1997) Adoption of zoning ordinances without prior adoption of comprehensive plans is prohibited. Stroud. Gale. 199 (1990a). Weatherby and Witt. 143 (1989). 288 (1996). Nelson. Lawlor. Howe. 48 (1998) SOUTH CAROLINA. Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum. Mandelker et al. 232 (1987).. Moore and Nelson. 258 (1980). DeGrove. 201 (1995). 213 (1975). Porter. 214 (1998). 79 (1992) Conditionally mandatory local planning. Salkin. 146 (1998b). 119 (1982). 216 (1979). 198 (1992b). Callies. Salkin. 58 (1991). 27 (1992). 224 (1996b). Merten. Little. Henderson. Oliver. 48 (1998) TENNESSEE. 200 (1990b). 197 (1992a).. 138 (1995). Peirce. 20 (1998). Weatherby and Witt. Leo. 269 (1993). 289 (1994) Vital areas legislation. 35 (1993). 157 (1998) Local Government Planning Enabling Act considered in 1992. DeGrove. 277 (1994). Davidson. 162 (1992). 78 (1996). 289 (1994) Senate Bill 10 of 1969 Land Conservation and Development Act of 1973 (Senate Bill 100) Mandatory local zoning in 1969 and 1973. 78 (1996). Lewis. 79 (1992) Unconditional local planning mandate. 137 (1976). 35 (1993). Dean. 102 (1992). 189 (1977). 257 (1996). 224 (1996b). Cobb. 79 (1992). Nelson and Duncan. Rosenbaum. 281 (1997b). Stroud. DiMento. 207 (1998). DiMento.. 225 (1993). 236 (1976) Unconditional local planning mandate. 227 (1991b). Gustafson et al. Rosenbaum. Kundell et al. 257 (1996). 236 (1976) Statewide planning goals adopted in 1974 Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in 1986.

Callies.. 173 (1993) Optional planning requirements adopted as part of a development impact fee law in 1987. Merten. DiMento. Gottlieb. 180 (1990a). 275 (1990). Dean. 160 (1992) Mandatory local comprehensive planning legislation of 1975. Inc. 48 (1998). Salkin. Bosselman and Callies. Council of State Governments. 162 (1992). 247 (1998). Stroud. 236 (1976) Conditionally mandatory local planning. May. 172 (1994). 224 (1996b). 157 (1998).CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 Senate Bill 3278 of 1998. 171 (1994). Burby and May. 78 (1996). Durant et al. 183 (1997). Nelson. Lawlor. D’Ambrosi. 60 (1996). 142 (1993). 246 (1993). Oliver.com by guest on January 31. Lawlor. 236 (1976) Critical-area program. Fulton. Pivo. Weatherby and Witt. 48 (1998) VERMONT. Henderson. 84 (1996). Settle and White. 138 (1995). 238 (1972). 173 (1993). Wickersham. Dye Management Group. 191 (1974b). DeGrove. DeGrove and Metzger. Innes. Washington State Growth Strategies Commission. 35 (1993). Inc. 20 (1998). Healy and Rosenburg. 41 (1994b). Haworth and Anderson. Gale. Kaiser and Godschalk. 64 (1992). Rosenbaum. 26 (1993). DeGrove and Metzger. Pivo and Rose. Meeks. Callies. Melloni and Goetz.sagepub.. 277 (1994). Young & Company. 274 (1997). 213 (1975). 79 (1992) UTAH Large-scale development siting legislation failed in 1975. Lewis. 218 (1993). 222 (1997). Trade and Economic Development and League of Women Voters of Washington. 101 (1991). Liberty. Nelson and Duncan. Bagne. Patton and Patton. 153 (1992). 63 (1993). 78 (1996). Moss. 108 (1975). 189 (1977). 83 (1993). 142 (1993). Nelson and Duncan. Meeks. 35 (1993). 214 (1998). 22 (1996). Moss. 84 (1996) Unconditional local planning mandate. 146 (1998b). Washington State Department of Community. Diamond and Noonan. Lawlor. 102 (1992). Weatherby and Witt. Kaiser and Godschalk. 257 (1996). Burby et al. 79 (1992). 188 (1995). 241 (1993). Kundell et al. 52 (1993).. 35 (1993). 189 (1977) VIRGINIA. 31 (1971). 70 (1984).. Leo. 193 (1992). 241 (1993). Liberty. 134 (1992). Bagne. 277 (1994). Council of State Governments. Morris. 157 (1998). 214 (1998). Washington State Land Use Study Commission. Cobb. 41 (1994b). 222 (1997). 225 (1993). 187 (1995) Capability and Development Plan (Act 85) of 1973 Growth Management Act of 1988 (Act 200) Adoption of zoning ordinances without prior adoption of comprehensive plans is prohibited. 21 (1994). Settle and Gavigan. Diamond and Noonan. Peirce. Ndubisi and Dyer. Bollens. Durkan. Fulton. 62 (1994). Cobb. 126 (1979). 48 (1998).. is the controlling instrument in land use decisions. Davidson. 54 (1978). 206 (1992). 61 (1996). Bosselman and Callies. Leo. 177 (1986). American Planning Association. 285 (1996). 183 (1997). 198 (1992b). Burby et al. Berke. 125 (1976). 66 (1989). Cobb. Stroud. Kaiser and Godschalk. 201 (1995). 26 (1993). 214 (1998) 333 Conditionally mandatory local planning. 31 (1971) Shorelines Management Act of 1971 House Bill 791 failed in 1973. 79 (1980). Godschalk. 241 (1993). 121 (1976). 56 (1984). Berke and French. Smith. King and Harris. 37 (1997). 2 (1997) Growth Management Acts of 1990 and 1991 Land Use Study Commission. Bish. Wickersham. 17 (1975). 54 (1978). 127 (1996). 228 (1991c). 289 (1994) State Land Planning Commission in 1971. 227 (1991b). 195 (1995b). Connerly and Muller. 257 (1996). 138 (1995). DeGrove. May. Salkin. 62 (1994). Rubino and Wagner. Burby and May. 64 (1992). Wells. Myers.. 151 (1989). 281 (1997b). Healy. DiMento. Bohlen et al. Morris. 27 (1992). 2013 .. Kelly. DiMento. 25 (1996). 64 (1992). 180 (1990a). if adopted. 223 (1996a). Meeks. 85 (1990). 101 (1991) Comprehensive plan. 289 (1994) State Land Use and Development Law (or Environmental Control Act) of 1970. Peirce. 162 (1992).. 27 (1992). 24 (1982). 187 (1996). 133 (1993). Matthews and Schneider. 151 (1989) Interim Land Capability Plan adopted 1972. 242 (1992). Berke and French. 48 (1998) Downloaded from jpl. 245 (1983). Liberty. 48 (1998) TEXAS. 180 (1990a). 73 (1993). 73 (1993). Bollens. 225 (1993). Peirce. 195 (1995b). 224 (1996b). Kelly. 37 (1997). Salkin. McDowell. Porter. 9 (1998b). 21 (1994). Weitz. 144 (1989). 153 (1992). Cobb. 79 (1992) WASHINGTON. Daniels and Lapping. 58 (1991). 276 (1998). 17 (1975) Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area of 1986. Rosenbaum. Settle. Knaap. Porter. 160 (1992). Durkan. Berke et al. 138 (1995). Gale. Merten. DeGrove. DiMento. 288 (1996). Cobb. or Act 250 Vital areas legislation (Green Mountains). 249 (1993). 240 (1992) Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act of 1988.. 219 (1991). Abbott et al. 102 (1992). Diamond and Noonan. 110 (1995). Kundell et al. Nelson. 78 (1996). 201 (1995). 153 (1992). 172 (1994). 182 (1993). 63 (1993). 107 (1986).. 55 (1976).. Burby et al.

. 119 1982. Henderson.. 213 (1975). 188 1995. 16 1997. 162 1992. DeGrove and Metzger.sagepub. DiMento. 57 1986. Knaap and Nelson.. 35 1993. 2 1997. 20 1998. Lincoln. Morgan and Shonkwiler. 45 1996. Bosselman and Callies. 247 1998. Howe. 28 1990. Nelson. Godschalk. 18 (1982) Conditionally mandatory local planning. Nelson and Duncan. Davidson. 58 1991. 150 1992. 52 1993.334 Journal of Planning Literature Mento. Epling. 215 1993. McDowell. Porter. Moss. Pelham et al. 180 (1990a) Critical-area program. 225 1993. Pelham et al. 217 1985. Burby et al. 216 1979. 164 1994. Cobb. Cape Cod Commission. 163 1996. Leeman. 224 1996b. Rosenbaum. 18 1982. 167 1993. Pacific Rim Resources.. Howe. 215 1993. 7 1974. Gustafson et al. Platt. 162 1992. Connerly and Muller. 149 1987. 54 1978. 1995b. 107 (1986). American Planning Association. 189 1977. 27 1992. Ndubisi and Dyer. 288 1996) Development of regional impact programs (American Law Institute. Platt. 236 (1976) Agricultural land conservation. 67 1988. 272 1993. Pelham. 171 1994. 57 1986. Kasowski. 80 1986. Matthews and Schneider. 92 1989. 35 1993. Settle and White. Cobb. 177 (1986). 187 1996. Gustafson et al. 127 1996. 186 1981. Richard Forester. 201 1995. 77 1998. Knaap. 27 1992. DeGrove. 26 1993. 212 1985. Stuart. 199 1990a) Housing (Connerly and Muller. 150 1992. Guskind. 175 1983. Owens. DeGrove. Berke. Weitz and Moore. Liou and Dicker. 74 1988. 211 1997) Intergovernmental relations (Abbott et al. 48 (1998) WISCONSIN. Daniels and Nelson. 47 1991. 262 1993) Model Land Development Code (American Law Institute. Pelham et al. Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program. and J. 73 1993. 31 (1971). 273 1993.. Luberoff. 95 1996a. 18 (1982). 204 1986. Mandelker. 11 1996b. 142 1993. 183 1997. 155 1997. Pelham. 252 1993) Evaluation (Baer. 91 1993. 187 1996. 226 1991a. 124 1978c. 128 1994. 52 1993. 220 1996. Leeman. 67 (1988) State Land Use Planning Act of 1975 (mandatory local comprehensive planning legislation and criticalareas legislation). O’Connell. 18 1982. 217 1985. Epling. 236 (1976) State land use commission. 246 1993) Modeling (Burchell.. Florida Department of Community Affairs. 131 1991b. Weitz. Meeks. 125 1976. 26 1992. 74 1988. 24 1982. 189 (1977) Conditionally mandatory local planning. Bish. Patton and Patton. 21 1994. 183 1997. 218 1993. Knaap and Nelson. Mazmanian and Sabatier. 119 1982. 155 1997. Fischer. 280 1997a) Consistency (Burby et al. 68 1986a. 73 1993. Porter. Merten. 217 1985. DeGrove. Sullivan. 120 1988. Morris. 216 (1979) Critical area regulation. Bollens. DeGrove and Stroud. Burby and May. 74 1998. Young & Company. 148 1990. Liberty.. 39 1993. 24 1982. 22 1996. Healy. 140 1991. 168 1989. Wickersham. 82 1975. Godschalk. Merten. DeGrove and Stroud. Barrows. James Duncan and Associates et al. 198 1992b. 40 1994a. Dunham... Pelham. Callies. 65 1991. 217 1985. DeGrove. 81 1980. Bollens. 188 1995. 92 1989) WEST VIRGINIA. Council of State Governments. 70 1984. Deyle and Smith. Moss. 220 1996) Concurrency (Bollens. 17 1975. 236 (1976) Industrial Development Information and Siting Act of 1975. Daniels and Nelson.. 58 1991. Liberty. 205 1991. Washington State Department of Community Development. Barrows. 236 (1976) Critical-areas legislation failed in 1975. Bagne. Rosenbaum. Kelly. DeGrove. 93 1985. Pivo. Odland. 136 1989. 283 1998) Farmland protection (Barrows. Pelham et al. Di- Downloaded from jpl. 150 1992. American Planning Association. Settle and Gavigan. Moss. Pelham. 118 1988. 79 1992.. 77 1998. Wallis. Rubino and Wagner. Berke and French. 276 (1977) Water Resources Act (shorelands protection program) of 1966 Large-scale development siting legislation failed in 1974. Rosenbaum. 10 1996a. 2013 . Daniels and Lapping. 25 (1996). O’Connell. 26 1993. 272 1993. Moss. Econorthwest. 96 1996b. 193 1992. Knaap and Nelson. 216 1979. 81 (1980). Cobb. 64 1992. Rosenbaum. 260 1994. 7 1974. Cobb.. 27 1992. 107 1986. Deyle and Smith. Healy. 37 1997. 189 (1977). Weber and Peroff. Berke et al. 238 (1972). Harris. Bollens. 48 (1998) WYOMING. Charlier. Liberty. 204 1986.com by guest on January 31. Bohlen et al. Davidson. Wallis. 162 1992. Pelham. 48 1998. 171 1994. Starnes. DeGrove and Metzger. 48 (1998) VII. 69 1986b. Matthews and Schneider. 189 (1977) Conditionally mandatory local planning. INDEX OF TERMS AND CONCEPTS Coastal planning (Bish. DeGrove and Stroud. Barrows. 43 1984. 70 1984. Morris. 1995a. 56 1984.

James. 19 Berke. 237 1995) Transportation and land use (Adler. Leo.. John D. 55 Daniels. 174 1996) Political culture and politics (Abbott. Luther J. Graham. Thomas M. 3 Abbott. 14 Audirac. Howitt. 5 1994. Robert L. Robert E.... 70. 35. 51 Connerly. 97. 88 Ehrenhalt. Sarah. 29 Charlier. John J. 158 1983. 201 Dunham. 86 EcoNorthwest. Luberoff. Leeman. 90 Einsweiler.. Scott. 51 Duncan. 132 1993. 53 Council of State Governments. 43. 94. 26. 52 Cooper. William C. 15 1990. David L. 40. 12 American Society of Planning Officials. 75. 115 1981... 87. Howard. 7 American Planning Association. 54 Dalton. Cohen and McAbee-Cummings. Robert W. 84 Dye Management Group.. 59. David. 68. 167 1993. 64. 283 1998. David J. 164 DiMento. 65. Florida Department of Community Affairs. Henry L. 150 1992. Carl. 53 1990. Mary. 35. Barrows. Burby and Dalton. 36 1994.. Cogan Owens Cogan. 11. 85 Dyer. Rothrock. 22. 34 Burby. 25 Bollens. P. Peter A. 109 1988.. 2013 . T. Settle and White. Nelson. 30. 87 1995a. G. 140 1991. Charles E. 73 1993. Liberty. 50 Colton. 41.. 29 Bosselman. 36.. Varian.. 53 Dean. 21. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. 147 1994. Little. James B. Weatherby and Witt.. Thad L. 1 1994.. 13 Association of County Commissioners of Georgia. Colton and DiTullio. Alan. 70 1984. 249 1993. 2 Adler. James R. 142 1993) Urban form (also see urban growth boundaries) (Audirac et al. Ehrenhalt. 136 1989. 23 Bish. Freilich and White.. Leonard. 151 Cape Cod Commission.. Roger W. Sy. Ryan. 97 1991. Rick. Gottlieb. 98 Forester. 15 Baer. James Duncan and Associates et al. Weitz and Moore. 35 Beyle. 10. 139 Banks. 1. Robert P. 141 1994.. Lance. 83 Durkan. Conrad N. J. 73.. 18 1982. 88 Downloaded from jpl. AUTHOR INDEX 335 Abbott.. 62. 96.. 47 Cobb. 166 1974. 269 1993) Sustainability (Florida Department of Community Affairs. Kelly. 72. 49 1997. 78 Dicker. 10 1998a. 77 Diamond.. 19 1992. 22 1996. Gordon. Linda C. 51 1999.. VIII. Todd J.. Arlan M. 162 1992. 192 Beatty. 18 Barusch.. Rodney L. 217 Barrows. Berke et al. 44 Campbell. 230 1990. Joseph S. 50 1998. 198 1992b. 17 Baldassare. Richard. 74. Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program. May. 288 1996). John W. Cooper and Davis. 185 1994.. 45 Carter. 184 Epling. 77 1998. 57. Jonathan M. Raymond J. 63. Fred P. Wickersham. Robert C. Margery. 49 Cohen. 258 DeHaven-Smith.. 16 Bagne. Leo. 82 Durant. 155 1997. Beckley. May and Burby. Allison. Ivonne.. 76 Deyle.. Lewis.com by guest on January 31. 81 DiTullio. 21 1994.. Durant et al... 63 1993. 157 1998. 33 Buchsbaum. 27. 199 1990a. 169 Beckley. Philip R. 91. 3. 193 Dyckman. 166 Davis. Berke and French. 71. Puget Sound Council of Governments. 5 Adams.. Richard W. 74 1988. 36 D’Ambrosi. 39 Callies. 31 Brower. 20.. 75 1991. 64 1992. Inc. 89 1997. 88 1995b. 48 Cogan Owens Cogan. DeGrove and Metzger. 60 DeGrove. 89 Einsweiler. 92 Fischer. 32. 277 1994. 4 American Institute of Planners. 79. Phyllis. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development.sagepub.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 Natural hazards reduction (Berke. Knaap and Nelson. 247 1998.. 99 1996. 20 1998. 173 1993.. Joan. 35. 110 1995. 114 1989. 58 Davis.. 80. John W. 2. 172 1994.. 24 Bohlen. Kasowski. 156 1998. 209 1991) Urban growth boundaries (American Planning Association. 207 1998. Barbara C. 119 Davidson. DeGrove and Stroud. Deyle and Smith. Moore and Nelson. Robert F.. DeHaven-Smith. 2. Thomas L. Governor’s Task Force on Urban Growth Patterns. 95. 211 1997. Gavan. 9. 22. 83 1993. George. 196 1994. 66.. 37. Michael L. 61. Mark. Lee D. 46 Caves. Gordon. 67.. 160 1992. 6 American Law Institute. 93 Florida Department of Community Affairs. Richard L. 31. EcoNorthwest et al.. 28.. 8. 38. Knaap. 174 Burchell. 42.. 209 1991.. 69. 56. DeGrove. Smith. 244 Brumback. 87. 94 1997.

205 Oliver. Thomas G.. 144 Hart. Robert G. 206 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Deborah A. 100. 145. T. J. 158 Levin. 188 Moss. 170 Miner. 230 Rand. Harriet. Robert. 57... David R. 25. 131 Howitt. Elaine. 83 Healy. 112 Governor’s Task Force on Land Use. Robert L. 202 Noonan. Dallas D. 209 Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program.. 3. 118 Gustafson. Janet D. 198. 78. 120 Harris. 278 Pivo.336 Journal of Planning Literature Liou. 88 Paterson... 110. Judith E. Paul D.. 177.. 211 Owens. Bruce D. and Walls. John R.. 221 Porter. 220 Popper. Abby. 35.. 162 Lincoln. 264 Meeks. Patrick E.. 217. 170 Matthews. Kevin. Greg C.. Phyllis. Charles G.... H. 128. 111 Freilich. Richard A. 156. 35 Fulton.. 196.. 139 Kane. 246 Georgia Department of Community Affairs. 222. 114 Graham.. 194.. Marya. 133. 172. Jeffrey H. Kathleen.com by guest on January 31. 150 Kundell. Mike. William. 190. 106 Godschalk. 143 King. Thomas R. Sylvia. Douglas R.. Aelred J. 121 Haynes. 101 Gale.. Leslie.. 248 Lawlor. 129.. David W.. Patrick F. 137 Juergensmeyer. Joseph M. Michael.. 22. 204. 136 James Duncan and Associates. Robert. 111 Governor’s Growth Strategies Commission. James T. 180. Forster. 214 Pelham. 185.. 171 May. 191 Nathan. Gordon.. 50 McCahill. 184 Moore. 189 Muller. 105. 224. Harris.. 109 Gottlieb. 178 Meck. Christopher. Inc. 228. 151 Knaap.. George E. Jr. 186 Morris. 163 Downloaded from jpl. 32.. 161. Robert I. Mark B. Daniel W. 32.. 197. 127 Hepburn... 99 French.. 274 Leeman.. 169 Kasowski. 179. 157 Leonard. 183 Metzger. Jon. 167 Lussenhop. Peter J. 195. Frank.. 219 Platt. 201 Nolon. 56 Larsen. Edward J. Arnold M. 207. 154 League of Women Voters of Washington.. 229 Puget Sound Council of Governments. 103 Gay. Diane Chandler. 182 Gordon. Glenn. Steven P. 151 Heiman. 142. 283 Moran... Julian C. 130. Amy. 138 Kanarek.. 107.. Patricia J. Gail. 21. 182 Merten. 147. 152 Lapping. M. 263 Peroff. Ed. Robert A. 174 Mazmanian.... 208... 140 Kelly.. 213 Peirce. 173. 135 Ivey. 165 Little. Robert C. 116 Gray. Steve C. 251 Harris.. 185. Daniel A. Stuart. James E. 117 Guskind. 72 Kaiser. 37. 138 Goetz. 176 McDowell.. Robert H. Don. James. 25 McKay. 216. 148. 203 Morgan. Irving.. 119 Hand.sagepub. Daniel R. Janet W.. 126 Heikoff. Charles E. Frank J.. 215. 38. Terry D. 87. David. Deborah A. 151 Laitin. 213 Patton. Neil R. Melvin R. 160 Liberty.. 153 Lawrence. 151 Howe. Barbara L. 154 Mandelker. 132 Hyde. 259 Odland.. 225. 217 Innes... 108. Jr. Suzanne.. Robert. Kay. 192 Ndubisi. 200. Robert. 134. 38 Patton. 193 Nelson. 166 Luberoff. 226. Mary Beth. Dennis E. 175 McAbee-Cummings. 218. 169 Mann. Young & Company. 113 Governor’s Task Force on Urban Growth Patterns. 150. 115 Grant.. Wendy U. 102. Patrick. Wayne A. 181 Melloni. James. Patricia S. Robert C.... H. 232 Reilly. 251 McGuire. 223. 210. Lawrence R. 159 Lewis. 73 Miles. 155 Leo. 168. 187. 149. Gordon. 136 Joint Legislative Committee on Land Use.. Arthur C. 203 O’Connell. 244 Miness. William L.. 212 Pacific Rim Resources. Terry. Gary. 141. K. Bennett.. 104 Gavigan. 103 Haworth and Anderson. Rutherford H. 144 Klant. 122. 231 Reed. Eric Damian. 52 Myers. 199. 146. 203 Noonan.. Milton. 125. Gerrit J. 227. 123. 164 Liroff. 2013 . 271 Henderson. Nathaniel P. Nancy A. 124. 35.

269 Vermont General Assembly.... 169. Inc. Thomas A.. 235 Rosenbaum. V.. Jr. 233 Roenigk. 290 Woolf.. S. 257... Larry W. 239. Nelson.com by guest on January 31. 119 Shonkwiler. Martin A. Katherine E. Trade and Economic Development. Richard L. 284 Wells.. 281. 259 337 Stuart. 238 Sabatier. 253 Stein.CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 Richard Ragatz Associates. Frank S.. Patricia E. Richard A. 258. L. Randall W... Joseph W. Bruce. Daniel W. 255 Shermyen. 15 Shirack. 278 Weitz.. 34. Jay M. Gayla. 262. Anne H. David L. Averil. 254 Stone.. Charles R. Philip A. 284 Settle.. 246.. 243 Scott.. 35 Rohse.. Larry J. 23 Young. 251 Starnes. Rosalyn P. Douglas H. 275 Washington State Land Use Study Commission. Laura A. 249 Smith. 289 Wilson. 266. 126 Rothrock.. 264 Turner. John S. 186 Siemon.. Inc. 99 Whitt.. 268 Van Horn-Gray Associates. Steve. 263 Thomas. 244 Seligson. 285 West. 241. 243 Slavet. 265.. 283. 136 Wagner. 242 Schneider. 159 Smith.. Stephanie L. Joseph S. 240. 276 Watkins. 175 Salkin. 282. 251.. 270 Wade-Trim.. 237 Rubino. James H. Earl M. Edward J. Rufus C... 280. 77 Smutney. 2013 . 22. Wesley. 260 Sullivan. 277 Weber... Mitch. 248 Silverman... Sureva. 267 Ulasewicz. 279. Richard.. Frank. Nancy E. Jr. 247 White. Greg.. 15 Smith. Jerry... Allan D. 273 Washington State Department of Community. 255 Strong. 274 Washington State Growth Strategies Commission. James B. Charles L. Jerome G. 250 So. Dale J. 245. 83 Thompson. 286 White.. 159 Rosebaugh. 238 Walker. 261. Marc T.. 23 Seltzer. 136 Varian... 288. Robyne S. 290 Weatherby.. 256 Stroud...sagepub. 151 Wright.. 234 Rose. Mark S. D. 272 Washington State Department of Community Development. 171 Schnidman... 236 Rosenburg. 243 Downloaded from jpl. John W.. Jane A. Harry. William R. Inc. Leonard U. Ethan.... 247 Seymour. 287 Wickersham.. 74. Paul A. 219 Rose. Deil S. 271 Wallis. Richard G. 277 Whorton.