sign in sign up
<<
Home , Metropolitan area, Urban growth boundary, Urban sprawl

Index

I. Introduction...... 2

II. What are Urban Growth Boundaries?...... 3

III. Examples of UGBs...... 4

IV. The Challenges Presented by Urban Growth Boundaries...... 6

V. Feasibility of Georgia and UGBs...... 9

VI. Foundations of in Georgia...... 10

VII. How could an program be implemented under the existing laws in Georgia and the Georgia Constitution?...... 13

VIII. Does the of Georgia have authority under the Georgia Constitution to require local governments to implement a UGB proram?...... 15

IX. Can a statewide UGB program withstand a takings challenge under the U.S. and Georgia Constitutions? ...... 16

X. Would a UGB program violate vested rights of landowners?...... 20

XI. Can a Transfer of Development Rights program or Impact Fees be used to mitigate the risks of takings challenges?...... 21

XII. A View of Growth Management Practice in Georiga...... 25

XII. Conclusion...... 28 Group members: Eric Pfiefer, Zack Ray, Jess Rafferty, Julie Saunders, and Michael Stewart

Image above from http://www.planetizen.com/node/129. The transect is a good example of growth boundaries and good .

 I. Introduction

Urban growth boundaries have been found to be beneficial in preventing sprawl and encourag- ing healthier in many cities in the U.S. Can UGBs have a similar impact in Georgia? Can a in Georgia under the current state constitution, laws and legal precedents undertake UGBs? How would a local government undertake the process of setting up UGBs? What policies for compensation of value could apply? These are just some of the questions that this report will address.

First, we begin by briefly addressing what exactly an urban growth boundary is and some of the pros and cons of implementing an UGB. Examples of states who have successfully imple- mented UGBs are and . Detailed narratives of these states’ UGB history and implementation are provided. Next, we will provide a closer look into some of the risks locali- ties take when implementing UGBs. Feasibility of Georgia implementing UGBs at the state level will be examined and then the legal implications. The legal questions include: are UGBs legal under the Georgia Constitution, can a transfer of development rights program to be impli- mented, and whether or not UGBs will cause takings issues. These legal issues are covered in the final sections of the report.

 play. The urban growth boundary is one of the tools used to protect farms and from and to promote the efficient use of land, public facili- ties and services inside the boundary. Other benefits of UGBs include: -Motivation to develop and re-develop land and buildings in the urban core, helping keep core down- in business. -Assurance for businesses and local governments about where to place , needed for future development. -Efficiency for businesses and local governments in terms of how that infrastructure is built. Instead of building infrastructure further out as is seen as the norm with sprawl, money can be spent making exist- ing infrastructure more proficient.

Pros and Cons of UGBs: Pro: -Can ensure more compact development. May en- courage retention and reuse of existing buildings, including those of historic significance. -Reflects preference for urban-type, higher density development. Reduces “urban sprawl.” -Can ensure diversity through careful fore- casting and land allocation to meet market demand in the planning period. -Can protect agricultural land from conflicts with urban uses. “Why could use UGBs,” Caricature by Julie Saunders (2008) -Establishes predictability as to where will occur in advance, directing private investment. II. What are Urban Growth -Matches urbanization with new infrastructure and Boundaries? promotes reuse of existing infrastructure. Cons: An urban growth boundary, or UGB, is a regional -Requires increases in housing density and land-use boundary set in an attempt to control development by intensity that may meet with homeowner opposition. designating the area inside the boundary for higher -May run counter to consumer preference for low- density urban development and the area outside for density development. lower density rural development. -Increases in land and housing costs may occur if land An urban growth boundary circumscribes an entire supply and market changes are not monitored. urbanized area and is used by local governments as -Requires strong controls or incentives on use of agri- a guide to and decisions. If the area cultural land outside urban growth boundary that may affected by the boundary includes multiple jurisdic- engender political opposition by farming intersts. tions, a special agency is created to -There may be no market for agricultural products. manage the boundary. -May prompt political opposition from communities that want little or no growth. The boundary controls urban expansion onto farms ------and forestlands. Land inside the urban growth bound- Metro Region, http://www.metro-region.org/ index.cfm/go/by.web/id=277 ary supports urban services such as , water and APA. Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook, sewer systems, parks, schools and fire and police 2002 Edition. p. 6-53 protection that create thriving places to live, work and ------

 III. Examples of UGBs:

Oregon

Oregon has the most high profile UGB system in place, which many planners and advocates use an example of good planning practice. In 1973, the Oregon Legislature enacted the Comprehensive Land Use Planning Act, which is one of the strongest state growth management laws in the nation. The Act mandated the establishment of statewide goals for the development and conservation of land. The Act created a new commission, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (“LCDC”), and a new agency, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (“DLCD”). The mission of these new entities aimed to define and attain very specific state Portland’s UGB. Photo from: http://courses.umass.edu/greenurb/2006/ land use goals both in the cities and the countryside. amerolli/UGB.jpg The Act connected state and local planning programs by requiring that local comprehensive plans be con- economic, and social consequences; (6) the retention sistent with statewide goals created by the LCDC. of agricultural land; and (7) the compatibility of the The LCDC reviews local plans and land use regula- proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activi- tions and approves them if they comply with the state ties. goals. Local land use regulations and decisions must Incorporated apply these factors to be consistent with the approved plan. designate enough growth within their UGB to provide The state planning goal requires incorporated munici- an adequate land supply for twenty years. A UGB palities to adopt UGBs. Local governments draw a can extend beyond municipal boundaries. clear line between urban and non-urban areas. Ur- Local governments are required to review their ban development may be built; however, not outside boundaries every five years. Permit review is re- UGBs, even if land is no longer usable for agricul- strained to inside of the UGB and the imposition of tural purposes. impact fees is restricted. Additionally, local govern- All cities and are required to zone land ments are required to plan for a variety of housing types that will accommodate all incomes. inside and outside cities. Inside UGBs, it is required ------that all types of housing, including apartments and Carrie Daniel, Land Use Planning-The Metropoli- tan Council: Novel Initiative, Futile Effort, 27 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. manufactured housing, must be included in zoning. 1941, 1956 (2001); Daniel R. Mandelker, Managing Space to Manage Additionally, state legislation prohibits local govern- Growth, 23 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol’y Rev. 801, 811-12 (1999). Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 197.000-.860 (2006). See Rolf Pendall & ments from adopting moratoria on new development Jonathan Martin, Holding the Line: Urban Containment in the United or on the extension of urban services except in very States, Brookings 2002. Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.005(2). See Robert Liberty, Give and limited circumstances. Take Over Measure 37: Could Metro Reconcile Compensation for Re- ductions in Value with a Regional Plan for Compact Urban Growth and Local governments must apply seven factors to Preserving Farmland, 36 Envl. L. 187, 191 (2006). decide on the size of the UGB: (1) the demonstrated See Robert Liberty, Give and Take Over Measure 37: Could Metro Reconcile Compensation for Reductions in Value with a Regional need to accommodate long-range urban Plan for Compact Urban Growth and Preserving Farmland, 36 Envl. L. growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals; 187, 191 (2006). Or. Admin. R. 660-15-0000 to 0010 (2006). (2) the need for housing, employment opportunities, Daniel R. Mandelker, Managing Space to Manage Growth, 23 and livability; (3) the orderly and economic provision Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol’y Rev. 801, 811-12 (1999) DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION & DEV., for public facilities and services; (4) the maximum OREGON’S STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the (1995); Daniel R. Mandelker, Managing Space to Manage Growth, 23 existing ; (5) the environmental, energy, Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol’y Rev. 801, 829, n. 48 (1999). ------

 Minnesota

Minnesota authorizes the designa- tion of UGBs on a voluntary basis. The voluntary statute defines urban growth areas as “the identified area around an urban area within which there is a sufficient supply of developable land for at least a pro- spective 20-year period, based on demographic forecasts and at the time reasonably required to effec- tively provide municipal services to the identified areas.”

Minnesota does not have a state- wide land use plan. Land use planning is at the local government skyline. Photo from: http://www.cincystreet.com/webcams/ level, and they are limited to activity within their minneapolis.html . In the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, the operating body through which the state attempts to one dwelling per 40 acres. Key agricultural areas manage growth is the (“Metro outside the current and future MUSA lines are to be Council”). The Metro Council serves as a policy permanently preserved, and growth is limited to one maker, but does not serve as the operating body to dwelling per 40 acres. implement those policies. The Council sets land use policies and other organizations implement the poli- Although the MUSA line has been regarded as a suc- cies. The Council also is responsible for providing cess in preserving open space, it has been hindered by everyday services in the region, such as a bus system, weak enforcement by the Metro Council. The Coun- wastewater collection, housing and , cil has limited powers to force compliance with its parks and planning and funding, and planning growth policies, and may only bring an enforcement for future development. action in court against a if the plan has a “direct and radical effect on any of the four basic The Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act of 1976 infrastructure systems.” Thus, the Council has tradi- required all local governments in the Twin Cities tionally not taken action to force compliance. to adopt comprehensive land use and development plans that would be reviewed by the Under the Minnesota Land Use Planning Act, the land Metro Council. Through its review process, the Metro use plans submitted to the Metro Council by munici- Council coordinates the land planning of communities palities are only implemented as guides, not mandates within the region. A centerpiece of Metro Council’s for cities to comply. This allows for cities to adopt plan is to confine half of the projected population ordinances in direct conflict with the Council’s land growth within a UGB called the Metropolitan Urban use plan. ------Services Area (“MUSA line”). Within the MUSA line, Minn. Stat. § 462.3535(2007). Carrie Daniel, Land Use Planning-The Twin Cities Metropoli- the Council plans to further develop the urban core tan Council: Novel Initiative, Futile Effort, 27 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. where sewers, roads, schools, and other infrastructure 1941, 1950 (2001). Minn. Stat. § 473.123 (2007). are readily available. The Council has a year 2020 ------UGB in place, as well as a year 2040 line. Between the MUSA line and the permanent agricultural reserve area exists the urban reserve, which contains land for the future expansion of the MUSA lines. The urban reserve is limited to growth of only

 left out in the Portland market. Homes in the central IV. The Challenges Presented by were substantially rehabilitated and new homes Urban Growth Boundaries. were built on lots, but large housing subdivi- sions were not pasted together at the scale of other The greatest challenge to implementing urban growth suburban areas in the country. Yet, housing was built boundaries (UGB) in Georgia is unfounded con- and continues to be built just not at rate and style troversial press that urban growth boundaries have preferable to the large-scale homebuilding indus- gained from media coverage in Oregon. UGBs are try. This market condition has been changing since not complicated legislatively. Many other states, 2003 when more homebuilders began specializing in cities, regions, and countries have successfully imple- creative mixed-use, multifamily, and infill construc- mented urban growth boundaries for better regional tion. As a result, many Portland homebuilders have livability. UGBs are great assets to growing regions. developed homebuilding skills that can be very profit- Despite mostly unfounded market criticisms, UGBs ably applied in other areas of the country (Marthens, do not harm a blossoming regional economy. Long- 2006). term growth management solutions fluctuate in early stages alarming certain regional economic sectors, but Presently, Portland lies above average for housing bolstering a region for long-term success at quality of affordability of U.S. West Coast Cities. The cost of life. A region’s factor becomes as great housing jumped significantly during the mid 1990s an economic magnet as many other traditional indus- until suddenly leveling out in 2003. The Hi-Tech trial and agricultural economic stimulators. industry in Portland increased incomes and hous- ing prices throughout the 1990s. Using data from Oregon’s UGBs have been greatly criticized for rais- the 2000 US Census, Portland’s median income was ing the cost of housing and pushing low-income resi- $65,800 compared to other US metro areas with a dents from the central city areas. Low-income resi- median income of $57,500. Combine this data with dents have increasingly moved from the city center in a Portland median house price of $201,000 and a US Portland over the last thirty years, but they have not metro median house price of $225,000 and Portland moved out of Portland or into other low-income areas. does not seem so unaffordable (Langdon, 2005). The demand for housing within the city caused heavy Similar house price increases of the magnitude of densification of the region as a whole. Multifamily Portland happened in other US West Coast cities and housing was built throughout the region in high traffic significant house price increases occurred in almost centers and formerly single-family neighborhoods. every city within 100 miles of a sea coast. There is The result is very efficient income mix throughout the not enough evidence to conclude UGBs make housing region rather than a majority of neighborhoods sepa- unaffordable in Portland. rated by income inequalities. Portland was described in 2006 as the most racially and economically bal- Parcels within the city of Knoxville, were anced city in the nation (Lucy and Phillips, 2006). more likely to be developed than before UGB imple- The UGB is primarily responsible for the availabil- mentation (Cho, Chen, Yen, Eastwood, 2006). Knox- ity of affordable multifamily housing. Low-density ville, one of the most sprawling cities in the nation, single family housing developments would have continued to annex suburban areas as build up oc- continued to be built in suburban areas in price tiers curred (Ewing, Pendall, & Chen, 2000). After UGB similar to most other U.S. cities. implementation, the escalating annexation battles on the fringe of the city abruptly stopped. Suddenly infill The National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) development became very attractive and annexation is a major source of negative press about UGBs. The was capped at the UGB boundary. The City of Knox- only industry directly affected by the UGB in - ville, as a provision of their UGB regulation, was land was the home building industry. This industry allowed to annex parcels within the UGB boundary began to decline in the early 1990s as large tracts of without the landowners consent, further strengthening greenfield became harder to find at the price of previ- the UGBs powers of densification. New development ous years. A population migration combined with this was carefully regulated beyond the UGB boundary single-family land shortage made homebuilders feel and essentially part of the city within the boundary

 Townhomes in close proximity to Heathrow Airport in the $400,000 range, courtesy Wikipedia 2008 reducing any zoning advantage of building outside of derelict and other urban land. the city limit. This UGB technique has substantially made building within the city more profitable to the Once an area of land has been defined as , developers, convenient to the homebuyers, and eco- opportunities and benefits include: nomically advantageous to decentralized Knoxville. - Providing opportunities for access to the open coun- tryside for the urban population; Internationally, ’s greenbelt system acts as - Providing opportunities for outdoor sport and out- an urban growth boundary for the metro area. The door recreation near urban areas; structure is slightly different in legislation and design, - The retention of attractive landscapes and the en- but the goals are the same as other statewide UGB hancement of landscapes, near to where people live; programs in the U.S. The British Government’s - Improvement of damaged and derelict land around Planning Policy Guidance 2: Greenbelts document towns; explains precise greenbelt goals as: - The securing of nature conservation interests; - The retention of land in agricultural, forestry and -To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up related uses. areas; -To prevent neighboring towns from merging into The major side effects of Britain’s Greenbelt system one another; are slow adaptation to population and environmental -To assist in safeguarding the countryside from en- management. Britain’s Greenbelt is much older than croachment; any U.S. UGB by at least thirty years, and London, -To preserve the setting and special character of his- especially, has a greater population than any U.S. city toric towns; with a UGB. Complaints about London’s Greenbelt -To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the may be echoed by Portlanders and Knoxvillians in

 years ahead. Greenbelt occurs far too With or without an urban growth boundary, a re- often in London as regional residents prefer extreme gional government would be a strong organizer for commutes over paying for London housing. London a well planned and livable region. Georgia would certainly has vastly more expensive housing than the especially benefit from strong regional leadership on U.S. when square footage and lot size comparisons account of its large number of small counties. The are made. However, Britain is an island nation twice positive of regional governing is demon- the size of Cuba with a population over 60,000,000. strated by Portland, Oregon. The regional governing Land is more valuable there than in comparative body monitors Portland’s UGB as well as regional regions of the US. planning, waste, recycling, regional greenspace, and transportation within the metro region. Georgia The British solution to Greenbelt leapfrogging and would benefit immensely from a similarly organized overuse is more flexibility with the Greenbelt. Rather metro governing body. Regional transportation could than a rigid ring of antidevelopment, environmentally be organized using federal monies connected to an al- valuable linear green wedges could be added and ready authorized Metropolitan Planning Organization subtracted in marginal greenbelt areas. Affordable (MPO). This transportation network would utilize a housing in London has many indepen- large scale regional plan with authorization from the dent of the Greenbelt in Britain to form a U.S. com- State of Georgia to regulate regional land use, - parison. The lesson for London’s Greenbelt system is pace, water quality, and garbage collection. providing legislative flexibility to adapt to changing urban environments. Urban Growth Boundaries serve many political, eco- nomic, environmental purposes. Studies have linked A UGB could be applicable to numerous regions in the affects of UGBs on housing markets and elected Georgia. The population centers of Savannah, Ma- governments overseeing UGBs. UGBs assume citi- con, Columbus, Albany, and all have historic zens will utilize many aspects of city life built into a centers and a water body running through the central city with an urban growth boundary. Increased den- city. These regional hubs are still at manageable sity, smaller lots, smaller homes, more public space, population levels with significant rural land on the less urban private golf clubs, use of transit, and much fringes. Like Portland, Oregon, most of Georgia’s less parking, are only a few. These are positive exter- regional hubs have less than 500,000 people in the nalities of UGBs from a long term growth manage- central city and less than two million in the region. ment perspective as are the environmental benefits. A UGB like Portland’s would be applicable to these Uncontrolled growth has a negative impact on open Georgia regions. However, half the State of Geor- space and environmental systems. Even UGBs that gia’s population lies in the piedmont region around are expanded allow time to examine sensitive areas Atlanta. A UGB in the mold of Portland would be that may be affected by new growth. UGBs allow for very difficult to implement. With up to 20 counties, better connectivity among parks, greenways, stream several watersheds, fringe cities, extreme commuters, corridors, and wildlife routes. Many of these aspects and almost four million people, the Atlanta region has are neglected when growth is separated into multiple a very fuzzy border. Plus, within 20 years another political . The side effects of UGBs are million citizens are projected to be migrating to the correctable if proper implementation legislation and region. care is taken to fit growth management solutions to a specific regions. ------Atlanta Regional Commission. (2007). Regional Population Data 2007. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://www.atlantaregional.com/cps/rde/xchg/arc/hs.xsl/3938_ENU_ HTML.htm Cho, S, Chen, Z, Yen, S.T., & Eastwood, D.B. (2006). Esti- mating Effects of an Urban Growth Boundary on . Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Re- trievedApril 15, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/ Atlanta Metropolitan Statistical Area population data for 2030 (Cour- articles/mi_qa4051/is_200608/ai_n17176794/pg_3. tesy Atlanta Regional Commission, 2007) Center of Excellence for , Greenbelt

 Alliance, (1998). Urban Growth Boundaries. Retrieved April 15, 2008, unfortunately it’s too late to contain Georgia’s sprawl- Web site: http://www.walkablestreets.com/ugb.htm ing capitol, and possibly too late to contain smaller Government of the . (2001). Planning Policy Guidance 2: Greenbelts (2nd ed.) [Brochure]. London, England: Parlia- cities experiencing growth. The ‘line in the sand’ ment. model must be replaced with an adaptive solution of Ewing, R, Pendall, R, & Chen, D Measuring Sprawl And Its strict density/zoning caps or downzoning outside the Impact. America, Retrieved April 15, 2008, from http:// www.movingtoportland.net/documents/MeasuringSprawl.pdf. boundary and increased focus on pedestrian walkabil- Langdon, P (2005). Urban growth boundary did not make ity and transit within the boundary. Portland unaffordable. New Urban News, 10, No.2, Retrieved April 15, 2008, from http://www.newurbannews.com/PortlandMar05.html Lucy, W, & Phillips, D (2006). Tomorrow’s Cities, Tomor- Diversity among Georgia’s regional growth needs row’s .: APA Planners Press. is the second difficulty faced by a statewide UGB Marthens, S (2006). Moving to Portland. Retrieved April law. Atlanta needs dense housing and transporta- 15, 2008, from Portland Planning and Zoning Web site: http://www. tion relief, northwest Georgia needs jobs and movingtoportland.net/portland_planning.htm Pingstone, A (2004, August). Wikipedia. Retrieved April control, southeast Georgia needs economic stimulus 16, 2008, from Qantas 747 Near Roofs Web site: http://en.wikipedia. and wetlands preservation, and so on for each region org/wiki/Image:Qantas.b747.roofs.arp.750pix.jpg in the state. Further, because of Georgia’s status as a ------home rule state which possesses multiple fragmented municipalities and more counties than any other state relative to area, formulating an acceptable statewide strategy for growth management is a difficult task. Regulations which may work in one area will serve to hamper another, creating political conflict between jurisdictions that precludes successful top-down, Photograph from http://www.atlantaregional.com/arc/html/ comprehensive growth management. The huge num- ber of political, private, administrative, and corporate V. Steps Towards Applying A concerns impacted by a UGB law means that flex- Statewide Growth Management ibility will be the keystone component of statewide Policy In Georgia implementation.

Georgia is one of the leading centers for growth For optimal flexibility, a three-tiered program matches in the southeastern . Our natural and local discretion with statewide funding and legisla- constructed infrastructure is slowly becoming over- tive power. The top tier is composed of the Georgia whelmed with new growth, and organized response Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which has been somewhat lacking. Currently, the most oversees general planning throughout the state and, comprehensive growth management plan in the state importantly, has the power to establish requirements is the Atlanta Regional Commission’s Envision6 land for an acceptable comprehensive plan. Between the use plan, which is oriented specifically towards meet- state and local levels are the Regional Development ing the challenge of accommodating new growth. Centers (RDC), agencies linked to the DCA that co- Other statewide responses have been scattered and ordinate and assist planning for smaller governments lacking, without an overarching plan. Without ef- within the RDC’s specific jurisdiction. Third is the fective growth control, new development in Georgia tier of local and governments, which will ulti- may slowly choke our economy. mately formulate their own UGBs in partnership with each other, coordinated and mediated by the overarch- Specific strategies for statewide implementation ing RDC. in Georgia must be flexible for two reasons. First, traditional UGBs rely on containment to keep land The Department of Community Affairs, which oper- somewhat scarce and land prices high close to the ates on the state level, is the first component of this city, resulting in a market push for higher densities. implementation plan. The DCA currently has power Distant cheap land removes value from over composition of plans across the state, and man- and suburban areas, resulting in lower central densi- dates what a comprehensive plan should look like. ties. Removing fringe land from the economic equa- Among the DCA’s powers is the ability to set mini- tion is one way to boost downtown land values, but mum regulations for an acceptable plan. State legisl-

 and ways, this document will not enumerate all pos- sibilities. One particular example is the needs di- chotomy of heavily urbanized and heavily rural areas – while strict zoning control, maximum house/lot sizes, and transportation development may aid growth management in Cobb County, in Ware County the best strategy may be pocket density focused on old centers and low-tax empowerment zones to attract new employers while maintaining a reserve of open land for farming or environmental conservation. In rural areas experiencing virgin development, a simple UGB line or other strict land use plan may suffice to keep growth balanced and sustainably dense. In older suburbs of Atlanta, downzoning and zone density Photograph from http://lovelyarc.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive. freezing with specific incentives towards selling de- html velopment rights into transportation-accessible areas ative action could push the DCA to include a clause would aid in shifting development from traditional that a complete plan must incorporate some element suburban sprawl into - and transit-megacor- ridors. of comprehensive land use control somewhat similar ------to a UGB. The specific regulations are, at this stage, A Summary of Georgia’s Regional Development Centers, irrelevant – they could be made as broadly or as nar- Georgia Association of Regional Development Centers, 2004 – accessed at www.gardc.net/downloads/rdc2004.pdf rowly as necessary, tuned to either elicit political sup------port or meet some specific need, such as workforce housing or watershed protection. VI. Foundations of Growth Man-

Regional Development Centers were established agement in Georgia statewide as part of the Georgia Planning Act of 1989. As established, they provide basic support for zoning, The current foundation of land use, and improvement, and growth management in Georgia in led by the and overall comprehensive planning. DCA and offers an excellent foundation to build Each RDC is owned and operated by the smaller upon and incorporate more robust efforts through member governments within its area of operation. UGBs. Each county in Georgia, as required by the UGB implementation will be mandated by the DCA, DCA, must prepare a comprehensive plan focused but guided by the RDC, which will provide region- around the state’s established planning goals as ally specific data regarding transportation, housing, shown in Table 1 on the next page. employment, and public service. Coordinating UGBs across county and city lines will be an additional re- The Georgia DCA provides “guidance to assist com- sponsibility of the RDC, augmenting the RDCs exist- munities in preparing plans and addressing the local ing role of conflict resolution and cross-jurisdictional planning requirements.” Clearly, cities and counties coordination. By incorporating RDCs into the plan- across the state are “diverse in terms of size, growth ning process, regional cohesion in growth manage- rate, economic base, and environmental and geo- ment needs can be attained while keeping individual graphic conditions, and their needs, concerns and government liberty to plan as they see fit. RDCs are goals for the future differ dramatically.” Therefore, not a middle layer of government between the state there are various levels of standards that counties and and local levels, but rather a steering and coordinating cities follow to complete their appropriate compre- agency that helps provide an interpretive power to lo- hensive plans. For the majority of counties and cities cal agencies when trying to comply with state law. with a population above 15,000 people, the juris- diction must meet three basic components to their Multiple potential strategies exist for local growth comprehensive plan: management, and this is where diversity in planning methods is most needed. Due to diversity in needs

10 (1) Community Assessment -- objective and profes- tire community” (DCA 10). This element may also be sional assessment of data and information about the coupled with future land use maps. These guidelines community that is intended to be prepared without are very flexible in that progressive counties and cities extensive direct public participation; concise and and go beyond these requirements to enhance their informative report used to inform decision-making by plan; this results in a range and variety of plans from stakeholders during development of the Community across Georgia. Agenda portion of the plan. (2) Community Participation Program -- describes In addition to the established statewide goals, DCA the local government’s strategy for ensuring adequate has declared a number of “Quality Community Objec- public and stakeholder involvement in the preparation tives” that elaborate on the state goals, based specifi- of the Community Agenda portion of the plan. cally on growth and development issues as identified (3) Community Agenda -- community’s vision for the in local and regional plans. These objectives are “in- future as well as its strategy for achieving this vision; tended to provide guidance, or targets for local gov- used for future decision-making about the commu- ernments to achieve, in developing and implementing nity; prepared with adequate input from stakeholders their comprehensive plan.” One objective important and the general public. Includes three main elements: to note in our study is the one Growth Preparedness (a) Community vision for the future physical Objective as seen below. development of the community, expressed in the form of a map indicating unique character areas, each with Each community should identify and put in place its own strategy for guiding future development pat- the prerequisites for the type of growth it seeks to terns; achieve. These may include housing and infrastruc- (b) List of issues and opportunities identified ture (roads, water, sewer and telecommunications) by the community for further action; to support new growth, appropriate training of the (c) Implementation program for achieving the workforce, ordinances to direct growth as desired, or community’s vision for the future and addressing the leadership capable of responding to growth opportuni- identified issues and opportunities. ties.

Interestingly to note, all comprehensive plans must This DCA objective offers a tremendous foundation include a Future Development Map “delineating for further UGB implementation. A UGB program in boundaries of major character areas covering the en- Georgia would help counties and cities fully meet this

11 important planning objective and lead to more tan- manners; leading most commonly to either sustainable gible, practical, and direct action. or sprawling communities. Consequently, UBGs are a meaningful growth management tool to adequately One very important piece of this objective that must protect future land uses and direct future development. be at the center of any UGB program in Georgia is ------the need to accommodate and plan for infrastruc- Georgia Department of Community Affairs (2005), Chapter ture. A UGB program will not be successful or 110-12-1. Standards and Procedures for Local Comprehensive Planning. ------practical unless it is directly tied to the expansions and improvement of roads, water, sewer, and tele- communications. Those elements guide patterns of development in both advantageous and detrimental

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Image from http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/takings-cartoon. jpg

24 XII. A View of Growth Manage- area “suffers from much of the chronic elements of ment Practice in Georiga sprawl.” Columbia County is better known for the opposite opinion; as a place of smart growth prac- One of the most helpful ways to analyze effective tice. Notably, as compared to the sprawling environ- growth management techniques in Georgia, par- ment in Henry County, Columbia County has 76% ticularly those pertaining to UGBs, can be found in of its population on 22% of its land area. Columbia discussion with seasoned professionals. As a group, County has been able to successfully balance growth we spoke briefly with a well experienced commu- and avoid many challenges through progressive and nity planner who has worked in several counties in intentional planning efforts. Georgia. Our discussions highlighted the reality that controlling urbanized areas and preserving rural com- Two of the most noteworthy elements to Columbia munities through growth management planning and County’s success as a best practice example stem implementation varies drastically between counties. from their fundamental land use decisions and its governmental organization of infrastructure. Firstly, Particularly, this discussion brought to our attention Columbia County was progressive in that during the the challenges that counties and other jurisdictions late 1960s they zoned the county in accordance to a face that lead them towards poor growth management comprehensive plan created by hired planning con- decisions and practices. Some of the most prevalent sultants. All major large areas we zoned to a “ challenges include: befitting the future land use” which avoided later ad-hoc decision-making or “knee-jerk” reactions (1) Rapid speed of development; from county commissioners and elected officials. (2) Economics of growth and development, balancing Secondly, Columbia County does not have a separate a rapidly-expanding residential base with a growing water and sewer authority but instead they operate it need for associated services, as well as the through a department of the local government. This need for commercial or industrial development; has allowed the county to conservatively control (3) Lack of educated planning staff in broader prin- the availability of water and over the ciples of growth management; years; ensuring that fundamental and largely impor- (4) Fractional elements of government which divide tant infrastructure decisions are made in congruence functions of infrastructure (Water and Sewer Author- with the county-wide vision. In addition, the county ity, Board of Education, local government), leading to works closely with the Board of Education to assist uncoordinated actions which do not adhere to future in selecting the site of new schools; representing a land use planning; relationship that is normally strained in many juris- (5) Lack of professional knowledge of growth man- dictions. agement principles within elected officials, leading to ad-hoc decision-making which is inconsistent with It is even more helpful and noticeable to recognize proven facts and accepted standards. the vast difference in planning practices across coun- ties by examining their future land use plans. The These challenges listed above lead to drastically dif- figures below display Columbia County’s future land ferent planning practices across the state. One spe- use plans. The county’s focused approach to follow- cific case in Georgia we discussed was the drastic dif- ing basic land use principles is evident. The process ference between Henry County and Columbia County. undertaken to formulate these plans demonstrate the These two counties are helpful to compare because county’s commitment to continue their success and both counties began their countywide planning ef- achieve the county’s future vision by “organizing forts in mid 1960s. By the 1980s, both counties had future development into a rational system of nodes.” relatively similar demographics, in terms of popula- As discussed in their most recent community agenda, tion growth, area, and socioeconomic factors. Today however, the two counties vary drastically “in terms “A Node is a concentrated activity center with a bal- of which has the greater quality of life and experience ance of commercial, office and residential uses. The in growth management” (Young). Henry County has Nodal Development Concept is a plan to organize recently experienced drastic and these more intense land uses into nodes, and thus is categorized by a more sprawling land pattern. The protecting existing neighborhoods, lessening sprawl,

25 and making the most efficient use of existing infra- structure. Most new commercial, office, and mixed- use developments are planned for designated nodes. Multifamily residential is also planned in designated nodes and along major arterial roads where appropri- ate. Nodes have been placed predominantly where major infrastructure exists and in the more developed parts of the county. All nodes are placed at existing intersections, usually of two major roads. Most of the proposed nodes currently have access to water and sewer infrastructure.”

The language and evident practice of Columbia County’s comprehensive planning and implementa- tion coincides with many of the foundational ele- ments emphasized in UGB programs. The nodal approach taken by Columbia County compliments the goals that specified boundaries and designated urban development areas pertain to. In contrast it is helpful to see the draft future land use plan created by Henry County on the following page. The uses are notably more displaced and less concentrated; the plan vis- ibility lacks much of the conformity and direction as seen in the Columbia County future land use map.

This positive growth management example in Colum- bia County demonstrates many of the same principles encouraged through UGBs. This example reaffirms and encourages the practice of fundamental land use. Regardless of the program name, basic land use prin-

26 ciples must be considered and implemented to ensure ------This portion reflects an interview with Tim Young, Direc- smart growth. As seen in Columbia County, follow tor of Community Development City of Locust Grove, on April 11, through with intentional planning efforts has led it to 2008. be one of the most well planned and livable counties ------in the state.

Henry County Future Land Use Map

27 XIII. Conclusion

This report highlights the fundamental elements that have made UGBs successful across the country. Georgia can greatly improve upon its current efforts by learning from the best prac- tices of other states. The structure already in place in Georgia offers excellent potential to create a more robust growth management program. A UGB plan would work to enhance the already existing growth management objectives of the state. Implementing such a program would be appropriate on the local level, as a positive supplement to the existing com- prehensive planning requirements.

Overall, the topic of UGBs emphasized the importance of using land use fundamentals to guide growth. Open communication between local governments, elected officials, and public service providers is essential. Concentrating development around existing transportation facilities and expanding water and sewer in a complimentary manner is an essential growth management practice, emphasized in UGB programs. Importantly, following basic land use practices works to preserve rural areas and enhance urbanized sectors of the community. UGBs are not a cure- all growth management practice, but are effective in reinforcing smart growth practices.

28