Innovative Approaches To Regional Growth Management
		Benjamin Hitchings
		Session: April 17, 2000, 1:00 PM	Author Info

ABSTRACT

Across the United States, efforts to manage growth at the regional scale exist along a continuum, with differing amounts of planning and growth management authority vested at the regional level. This paper outlines a new system for classifying the approaches, and features three regions ? Denver, San Diego, and Seattle -- that are exploring an innovative middle ground.¹
 

Like a marching band without a drum major, growth without regional coordination is an accident waiting to happen. As communities across the United States confront the problems of poorly planned development, their success depends increasingly on their ability to cooperate on a regional level to match the scale at which many growth issues unfold.

Efforts to coordinate regional development exist along a continuum, with varying amounts of authority vested at the regional level. This paper outlines a classification system to describe the range of approaches currently in use across the United States and highlights the innovative middle ground being charted in the Denver, San Diego, and Seattle regions (see Figure 1).

At one end of the continuum are communities that take an ad hoc approach to addressing regional growth issues. In this arrangement, local communities may decide to work together to address specific issues such as watershed protection or preserving scenic views along a transportation corridor, but they have no comprehensive, updated plan in place to address the future physical development of the region as a whole. Often, these places have a voluntary council of governments that provides a forum for discussing issues of regional concern but has insufficient resources or authority to draft a regional plan. This is the situation in places such as Austin, Texas and the Research Triangle region of North Carolina. Nationwide, this is the most common arrangement.

The other end of the continuum is marked by regions that have statutory authority to develop a regional growth strategy and oversee its implementation. In such authoritative systems, the regional body can require changes in the plans and development codes of local communities to ensure that these documents are consistent with the regional strategy. This is the case in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota and Portland, Oregon.

In between lies an emerging middle ground. In some metro areas, the regional council has the resources and authority to draft a regional plan, but has little means for implementing it. These regions are categorized as having an advisory system of growth management. Examples currently include Denver, Colorado and San Diego, California. Other regions have taken an additional step and vested the regional council with the authority to administer a regional growth strategy developed by the local jurisdictions. In this supervisory arrangement, responsibility for implementing the strategy lies with the local communities, while the regional body oversees compliance and tracks progress toward realizing the goals of the regional plan. Seattle, Washington provides an example of this approach.

A review of selected case studies in the United States suggests that only when regions develop a supervisory or authoritative approach and maintain it over a significant period of time can they begin to truly influence development patterns on a regional scale. For those regions that are reluctant or unable to build the political support for an authoritative framework, the supervisory approach holds considerable promise. The key is to create a binding implementation mechanism to follow through on the regional vision crafted jointly by local governments.

In general, a supervisory or authoritative system can be established in three ways, either by:

• Local governments, through an interlocal agreement;
• The state, through state legislation; and/or
• Voters, through an initiative or referendum.

Figure 1. A Continuum of Regional Growth Management Systems in the United States (updated from Hitchings, Benjamin G., Fall 1998, "A Typology of Regional Growth Management Systems," The Regionalist, Vol. 3, Nos. 1/2: 1)
 
 

Classification	Examples
Ad Hoc	Austin, Texas Research Triangle, North Carolina
Advisory	Denver, Colorado  San Diego, California
Supervisory	Seattle, Washington
Authoritative	Minneapolis-St.Paul, Minnesota  Portland, Oregon

 

Figure 2. A Worksheet for Characterizing the Regional Growth Management Framework in Your Region
 
 

1. In what region do you live and work?
 
 

2. What is the name of your regional planning council?
 
 

Primary Criteria for Classifying Regional Growth Management Framework

3. Does your region have a current regional land use plan (circle one)?

4. Has the regional council been given the authority to oversee local government implementation of the plan?

6. Which kind of regional growth management framework did you identify for your region?

7. Does the regional council have any control over the development of regional infrastructure (please check all that apply)?

(Please make ballpark guess)

Please mail completed survey to: Ben Hitchings, Triangle J Council of Governments, P.O. Box 12276, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

1. For a full-length article describing the classification system, see Hitchings, Benjamin G., Fall 1998, "A Typology of Regional Growth Management Systems, " The Regionalist, Vol. 3. Nos.1/2: 1-14.  To classify the regional growth management framework in your region, see the worksheet included at the end of this paper (Figure 2).
 

Author and Copyright Information

Copyright 2000 By Author

Benjamin Hitchings
Triangle J Council of Governments

Benjamin Hitchings works as a senior planner for the Triangle J Council of Governments in the Research Triangle Region of North Carolina. He holds a master's degree in regional planning from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Please email correspondence to <benh@tjcog.org> or mail it to Triangle J Council of Governments, P.O. Box 12276, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. For telephone communication, call 919/558-9397.