Weitz 1999

7/29/2019 Weitz 1999

1/73

http://jpl.sagepub.com/Journal of Planning Literature

http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/14/2/266The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/088541299220926941999 14: 266Journal of Planning Literature

Jerry WeitzFrom Quiet Revolution to Smart Growth: State Growth Management Programs, 1960 to 1999

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Planning LiteratureAdditional services and information for

http://jpl.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jpl.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Nov 1, 1999Version of Record>>

by guest on January 31, 2013jpl.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jpl.sagepub.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/14/2/266http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/14/2/266http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/14/2/266http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jpl.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jpl.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jpl.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jpl.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/content/14/2/266.full.pdfhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/content/14/2/266.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jpl.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/14/2/266http://jpl.sagepub.com/

7/29/2019 Weitz 1999

2/73

Journal of Planning LiteratureCPL 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 manage-ment programs is now four decades old. Surprisingly, much

variationexists among scholarlyaccountsof thequiet revolu-tion and the second wave of state growth management pro-

gram history. The literature has expanded rapidly as stategrowthmanagementprogramshave evolved in the 1990s intonewphases of program history: a thirdwave andnowa subse-quent era called smart growth. As we look ahead to newerstate programs that are designed to curb sprawl and promotesustainability, it is useful to take a comprehensive look atwhere we have been. Thestate growth management literaturedeserves consolidation, reconsideration, and reconciliation.With almost three hundred annotated entries, this bibliogra-

phy providesa thorough, but not exhaustive, review of the lit-erature on state growth management programs. Thebibliographys primary purpose is to identify the states thatare considered, or should be considered, growth managementstates.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. IntroductionA. Historical Overview

B. Elements of State Programs1. Areas of Critical State Concern

2. Development of Regional Impact3. Local Comprehensive Planning Mandates4. State Land Planning Agency5. State Land Development Plan6. Special Regional Approaches

II. How Many State Growth ManagementPrograms Are There?

III. Literature on Selected StatesA. CaliforniaB. ColoradoC. DelawareD. FloridaE. Georgia

JERRYWEITZ, Ph.D., AICP, held positions of senior planner forthe Georgia Mountains Regional Development Center, urban

growth management specialist for Oregons Department of LandConservationandDevelopment, andplanningmanager for CowlitzCounty, Washington. He is now the planning director for Roswell,Georgia.

Journal of PlanningLiterature,Vol.14,No.2(November1999).Copyright 1999 by Sage Publications, Inc.

http://jpl.sagepub.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/http://jpl.sagepub.com/

7/29/2019 Weitz 1999

3/73

F. HawaiiG. MaineH. Maryland

I. MassachusettsJ. NevadaK. New JerseyL. New York

M. OregonN. Rhode IslandO. VermontP. Washington

Q. WyomingR. Other States

IV. ConclusionV. Annotated Bibliography

VI. Index of Programs or Legislation by StateVII. Index of Terms and Concepts

VIII. Author Index

I. INTRODUCTION

A decade ago, Daniel Mandelker (1989) argued thatthere are problems with existing classifications of stateplanning efforts. Those classification problems still re-main today. Although state involvement in land useplanning hascertainlyvariedover time, scholars are lit-erally all over the map with their descriptions and clas-sifications of state land use programs. As a result ofthese classification problems, there are remarkablevariationsin scholarly assessments of howmany states,andwhich states, have implemented state growthman-agement programs. Those assessments deserve somereconsideration and reconciliation, and a new classifi-cation of elements of state growth management pro-grams is needed.

The two key objectives of this bibliography are (1) toidentify the universe of significant state growth man-agement programs in the United States since Hawaiibegan a new age of state planning in 1961 and (2) to de-termine which states are considered or should be con-sidered growth managementstates.This annotated bib-liography provides a classificationscheme for elementsof state growth management programs that is based onthe Model Land Development Code (MLDC) in an ef-fort to fill the need for a better classification system.

However, this bibliography will not end the debate.Universal acceptance of the current number of growthmanagement states and the qualifications for the statusof a growth management state is largely unattainable.However, this bibliography is one of the first recent at-tempts to (1) determine, based on a thorough literaturereview, which states have been considered growthmanagement states, and (2) classify the elements of thestate growth management programs implemented inthose states.

This bibliography is an extension of Weitz (forth-coming), which examines the historical evolution andstructure of a limited number of state growth manage-ment programs. The bibliography takes the referencelist of that work and, in addition to providing annota-tions for those citations, adds literature on other stateprograms.

In addition to covering the literature on statewidegrowth management programs, the bibliography in-cludes major works on substate and bistate regionalgrowth management programs. These include, amongothers, examinations of the Columbia Gorge Commis-sion (Abbott et al. 1997), the Puget Sound region (Bish1982), the Lake Tahoe basin (Strong 1984; Nathan andBarusch 1978), Cape Cod, Massachusetts (Bollens andCaves 1994; Bollens 1990; CapeCod Commission 1996),the Portland, Oregon region (Leo 1998; Leonard 1983),Californias coastal zone (Fulton 1993; Fischer 1985),New Jerseys Hackensack Meadowlands (Grant 1978),

and the Adirondack Park in upstate New York (Ulase-wicz 1986; Graham 1981; Liroff and Davis 1981).Most articles onstate growthmanagementprograms

publishedintheJournal of the AmericanPlanning Associa-tion and Planning magazine are included in this bibliog-raphy. I also consulted Sage Urban Studies Abstracts andtheJournal of Planning Literature to identify literature. Inaddition to coverage of the published literature, thisbibliography includes abstracts for state agency publi-cations and study commission reports from Florida,Georgia, Oregon, and Washington.

A. Historical Overview

State planning is not a new concept. The origins ofstate planning have been linked to the New Deal eraand the National Resources Planning Board, and therewere forty-seven states with state planning boards by1938 (DAmbrosi 1976). For brief histories of state plan-ning, see McDowell (1986), Wilson and Watkins (1978),and Rosebaugh (1976). By 1960, there was renewed in-terest in state planning (Dyckman 1964; American Insti-tute of Planners Committee on State Planning 1959). Atleast thirty-four states had enacted state planning legis-lationbymid-1960,but onlyHawaii hada statecompre-hensive plan addressing land use (Gray 1961).

A new age of state land use planning began in Ha-

waii in 1961 (Lawlor1992). That new age is much betterknown and chronicled in the literature as the quietrevolution (Bosselmanand Callies 1971), although therevolution in land use control did not begin in earnestuntil the environmental movement blossomed in thelate 1960s. Scholars do notuniversally accept thebegin-ning and ending dates of the quiet revolution, but therevolution generally began with Hawaiis land use law(1961) and abruptly ended about 1976 (Weitz forthcom-

CPL Bibliograpy 355/356/357 267


7/29/2019 Weitz 1999

4/73

ing). The literature on state land use programs duringthe quiet revolution is voluminous; however, it variessubstantially with regard to how many states adoptedsome sort of state land use statute or program.

ing). The literature on state land use programs duringthe quiet revolution is voluminous; however, it variessubstantially with regard to how many states adoptedsome sort of state land use statute or program.

Duringthe late 1970s andearly1980s,state interest insponsoring regional and statewide growth manage-ment and environmental protection programs sub-

sided. However, Floridas overhaul of its growth man-agement statutes in 1984 and 1985 ushered in a secondwave of state growth management history. As withchronicles of the quiet revolution, there is no universalagreement on when the second wave began and ended.However, the second wave of state growth manage-ment program history is generally considered to beginwith Floridas overhaul of its growth management pro-gram in 1985 (DeGrove 1989; Guskind 1988). The sec-ond wave hit with full force in 1988, when Delaware,Maine,Rhode Island, andVermontpassed state growthmanagement laws (Fulton 1991).

A third era of growth management program historybegan to evolve with the adoption of statutes in Georgiain 1989, Washington in 1990 and 1991, and Maryland in1992, andwith growing interest in growthmanagementin other states. The 1990s ushered in another wave ofstates interested in statewide comprehensive planning(Salkin 1993). Currently, the influence of the GrowingSmart program is accelerating and strengthening asmore and more states consider Smart Growth pro-grams. Some state efforts are devoted to modernizingtheir planning and zoning enabling statutes, yet othersare introducing more significant state roles in manag-ing growth. In just the last year, interest in Smart

Growth programs seems to be growing exponentially.Hence, state growth management program historyevolved into a third wave in the early 1990s and, as of1998, entered a fourth waveanother revolutionnowSmartGrowth. Thus, state involvement in regionaland statewide land use planning and regulation hasevolved through distinct periods: the quiet revolution(1969 to 1976), a second wave (1980 to 1988), a thirdwave (1989 to 1997), and now a fourth wave calledSmart Growth (1998 to present). For more informationabout these periods of state growth management his-tory, see Weitz (forthcoming).

B. Elements of State ProgramsThe MLDC prepared by the American Law Institute

(1974) is the most logical pointof departure for classify-ing elements of state growth management programs.Two sections of the MLDCs article 7 (State Land Devel-opment Regulation)Areas of Critical State Concernand Development of Regional Impacthave influ-enced the structure and content of state growth man-agement programs. For instance, Floridas Environmen-tal Land and Water Management Act of 1972, which

actually preceded publication of the Model Code, con-tains provisions that are quite similar to these twoMLDC sections. Other states adopted these MLDC pro-visions or some variation of these provisions as part oftheir state growth management programs (Table 1).Hence, areas of critical state concern and developmentof regional impact are two regulatory elements of state

growth management programs.The council developing the MLDC specifically re-

jected inclusion of a statutory mandate for local land de-velopment (i.e., comprehensive) planning (AmericanLaw Institute 1974). However, the council viewed localcomprehensive planning as a precondition of the exer-cise of much local land use regulatory authority. Othersections of the Model Code have formed the basis forstate growthmanagement programs, including article 3,part 1, LocalLand DevelopmentPlans. This sectionpro-vides that local governments may adopt a local landdevelopment plan and establishes requirements for

the contents of such plans. Hence, local land develop-ment planning (or more broadly, comprehensive plan-ning) is another element of state growth managementprograms.

Two additional elements of state growth manage-ment programs flow from other parts of the MLDC.Part 1 of article 8 (State Land Development Planning)creates a state land-planning agency that has authorityto create one or more regional planning divisions. Thestate land-planning agency may be required or author-ized to review and approve local land developmentplans. According to the Model Code, if a local govern-ment prepares a land development plan, review by a

state land development planning agency is required(sec. 3-106). Local planning technical assistance isauthorized, but notrequired, bypart 5 of article 8. Part 4of article 8 describes state land development plans,which are required to be prepared and taken into con-sideration according to certain model code provisions.Thus, the establishment of a state agency responsiblefor land use planning is an integral part of each stategrowth management program, and preparation of astate land development plan is another common ele-ment of state programs.

In addition to the five elements of growth manage-ment programs that flow from the contents of the

MLDC, another category of program elements is neces-sary to capture or accommodate the special regionalgrowth management programs. This sixth type of pro-gram element is called special regional here becauseof the uniqueness of approaches to regional land useplanning andregulation exercisedbythevarious states.

Table 1 describes six elements of state growth man-agement programs. The six program elements are in-tended and believed to be inclusive; that is, each stategrowth management program should fall into at least

268 Journal of Planning Literature


7/29/2019 Weitz 1999

5/73


TABLE 1. Elements of State Growth Management Programs with Variations and Representative Examples

Representative Example(s) of StateType of Program Element Important Variations Possible Programs in Practice (Year Adopted)

Areas of critical state concern 1. Mandatory or optional 1. Florida (1972, mandatory) and Oregon2. Regional and/or local approaches to (1973, optional)

critical areas regulation 2. Georgia (1989, regionally important

3. Coastal, shoreland, and/or wetland resources) and Washington (1990/1991,regulations local critical-area regulations)

3. California (1972 and 1976, coastal),Wisconsin (1966, shorelands), andMassachusetts (1963, wetlands)

Development of regional impact 1. Impact reviews are binding or 1. Florida (1972, binding) and Georgia (1989,nonbinding on local governments nonbinding)

2. Review and permitting by state/ 2. Maine (state, 1970) and Vermont (1970,region of large-scale development regional)

3. Development siting program for 3. Maine (1969)specific areas

Local land development 1. Mandatory or optional (encouraged) 1. California (1965, mandatory), Oregon

(comprehensive) planning 2. Mandatory for some local (1969, 1973, mandatory), Florida (1975,governments but not others 1985, mandatory), and New Jersey (1985,3. Land use regulations to implement optional)

local plan are mandatory or optional 2. North Carolina (1974, coastal) andWashington (1990/1991)

3. Oregon (1973, mandatory), Florida (1985,mandatory), and Georgia (1989, optional)

State land planning agency 1. State land planning agency 1. Florida (1972) and Oregon (1973).2. Regional planning divisions/ Vermont (1970), Florida, and Georgia

commissions in lieu of, or in addition (1989)to, state planning agency 2. Georgia (1989, mandatory) and Oregon

3. Authority to establish procedural (1973, optional)and/or substantive standards for local 3. Florida (1985) and Oregon (1973)plans and review and comment on 4. Florida (1985, mandatory) and Georgia(but not approval of) local plans (1989, mandatory) and Oregon (1973,

4. Authority to reject or approve local optional)plans

5. Mandatory or optional state or regionaltechnical assistance for local planning.

State land development 1. State land development plan 1. California (1964), Vermont (1973), Hawaii(comprehensive) plan 2. State land classification plan (1978), Florida (1986), and New Jersey

3. Statewide planning goals instead (1986)of a plan 2. Hawaii (1961), Vermont (1972), Delaware,

4. Consistency between state plan/goals and Alaskaand local plans is enforced or not 3. Oregon (1974) and Maryland (1992)enforced 4. Oregon (1973) and Florida (1985)

5. State agency coordination (enforced) and Georgia (1989, not

enforced)5. Florida and Oregon

Hybrid regional approaches 1. Specific substate program 1. New York (1971, Adirondack Park(plans and/or regulations) 2. Mandatory regional planning Agency)

3. Multistate planning and regulation 2. Florida and Georgia (1989)3. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1969,

California and Nevada) and ColumbiaGorge Commission (1986, Oregon andWashington)


7/29/2019 Weitz 1999

6/73

oneof thesix categories.Stategrowth management pro-grams can incorporate one or more of the elementsshown in Table 1; therefore, some overlap is possible.The sixth program element, special regional, could ar-guably be folded into the areas of critical state concerncategory or other categories. For example, New YorksAdirondack Park Agency has been identified in the lit-

erature as a critical-area program butis categorized as aspecial regional approach in this bibliography becauseit combines more than one of the other five programelements.

oneof thesix categories.Stategrowth management pro-grams can incorporate one or more of the elementsshown in Table 1; therefore, some overlap is possible.The sixth program element, special regional, could ar-guably be folded into the areas of critical state concerncategory or other categories. For example, New YorksAdirondack Park Agency has been identified in the lit-

erature as a critical-area program butis categorized as aspecial regional approach in this bibliography becauseit combines more than one of the other five programelements.

Possible variations of each program element areshown in the second column of Table 1. The programelements generally vary on the basis of whether theyare mandated or encouraged (i.e., optional), and some-times on the basis of geography (i.e., whether they ap-ply to all or some areas or local governments in thestate). Variations in substance (e.g., wetlands or shore-lands), intergovernmental framework (e.g., local or re-

gional), and approach (e.g., state plan versus statewideplanning goals) are also noted. Variations arenotneces-sarily mutually exclusive. One state may have adoptedmore than one variation (e.g., Florida and Vermontsstate land development plans). Other variations arepossible, but Table 1 includes the most significant dis-tinctions in practice.

At least one example of a state program is providedforeach variationof program elementshown in Table 1,along with the date (when known) the statute or pro-gram wasadopted. Wherepossible given thespecificityof literature, multiple (rather than representative) ex-amples of the various program elements are provided

in Table 1. However, the examples provided are not ex-haustive; other states not included in Table 1 may haveprograms that contain a given element and variation.Each of the six elements of state growth managementprograms is discussed in greaterdetail below. A glossaryof terms important to the description of state growthmanagement programs is also provided (Table 2).

1. AREAS OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN

Patton and Patton (1975) find that ten states (Colo-rado,Florida, Hawaii, Maine,Minnesota, Nevada, NewYork, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin) had critical-areaprograms under way by late 1974. Moss (1977) identi-

fies an identicalnumber, buta differentset of stateswithcritical-area programs (Colorado, Florida, Maine,Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ore-gon, Utah, and West Virginia). Rosenbaum (1976)statesthat, as of December 1975, fourteen states had adoptedwetland protection laws, fourteen states had adoptedshorelands protection legislation, and seven statesadopted critical-environmental-areas protection legis-lation (Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, Ne-vada, Oregon, and Wyoming). Rosenbaum also notes

that legislation to protect critical areas was defeatedduring the quiet revolution in Arizona, Georgia, Idaho,Iowa, New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

Healy (1978a) suggests that nine states had as-sumed the power to regulate critical areas andtwenty-four states regulated wetlands or shorelands(p. 171). (Healy does not include the lists of states.) Pel-

ham (1979) finds that six states had enacted significantcritical-area programs (Colorado, Florida, Minnesota,Oregon, Nevada, and Wyoming), but that Oregon andNevada had not exercised their authorization provi-sions. Pelham apparently applied a more rigorous defi-nition that contained recognizable language from theMLDC. McDowell (1986) identifies a total of twenty-sixstates with either statewide land use planning and con-trol or similar controls that apply only in coastal zonesor only to areas of critical state concern. Meeks (1990a)finds that critical-area programs exist in nine states(California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ne-

vada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Vir-ginia). As noted above, some of these state critical-areaprograms might more appropriately be categorized asspecial regional approaches.

2. DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT

This type of state growth management program ele-ment is referred to in the tradition of the MLDC as de-velopments of regional impact (Morris 1996, 1995;American Law Institute 1974) and developmentthreshold programs (Davidson 1991). Rosenbaum(1976) finds that as of December 1975, four states hadlarge-scale development siting legislation. These stateswere Florida(the Environmental Landand Water Manage-

ment Act of 1972), Maine (the SiteLocation of DevelopmentAct of 1970), Vermont (1970), and Wyoming (the Indus-trial Development Information andSitingActof 1975). Twoother states (Delaware and New Jersey) adopteddevel-opmentsiting legislationthat appliedonly to coastal ar-eas. Rosenbaum alsonotes that duringthequiet revolu-tion, five additional states (Idaho, Iowa, NewHampshire, Utah, and Wisconsin) proposed, but failedto adopt, similar legislation. Georgias program in-cludes a development-of-regional-impact program, al-though the reviews and findings of regional entitieswith regard to these types of developments are advi-

sory and nonbinding on local governments.3. LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING MANDATES

Rosenbaum (1976) states that, as of December 1975,thirteen stateshadpassed mandatory local comprehen-siveplanning legislationCalifornia in 1965,Oregon in1969 and 1973, Arizona in 1971, Colorado in 1972,Rhode Island in 1972, Nevada in 1973, South Dakota in1974, Virginia in 1975, Idaho in 1975, Wyoming in 1975,Montana in 1975, Florida in1975, and Nebraskain 1975.He also finds that in 1975, the Iowa House passed man-



7/29/2019 Weitz 1999

7/73


TABLE 2. Glossary of State Growth Management Terms

Areal comprehensiveness: A spatial term that denotes a characteristic of a state growth management program where every acreof land is covered by a particular mandate (to plan, to regulate, etc.).

Areas of critical state concern: An element of a state growth management program through which the state identifies environ-mentally sensitive geographic subareas of the state, prepares a management plan, and exercises regulatory authority oversuch areas to the preemption of, or in cooperation with, local land use regulation (based in part on Wickersham 1996).

Bistate planning compact: An agreement between two states and ratified by the U.S. Congress relative to planning a subarea ofthe United States that transcends the boundaries of a state and that typically creates a unique regional land use agency toplan or regulate the use of land (based in part on Wickersham 1996).

Development of regional impact: An element of a state growth management program in which a regional planning agencyreviews or approves all development proposals that meet a certain threshold found to trigger greater than local effects(e.g., traffic, pollution, etc.).

Growing Smart: American Planning Associations program to modernize state planning and zoning enabling statutes, initi-ated in 1992.

Growth management: A calculated effort by a local government, region, or state to achieve a balance between natural systemsland, air, and waterand residential, commercial, and industrial development (DeGrove 1991, Introduction).

Growth management state: A state in the United States that has, by statute, created a significant or notable regional or stategrowth management program.

Local comprehensive planning mandate: A state requirement that cities or counties prepare and adopt local comprehensive

plans, subject to one or more qualifying conditions under which the mandate applies (based in part on Cobb 1998).

Local land development plan: A statement in words, maps, illustrations or other media of communication setting forth localobjectives, policies and standards to guide public and private development of land within its planning jurisdiction andincluding a short-term program of public actions. Note: Even though technical distinctions between the two remain, theterm 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 Insti-tute 1974, 141-42).

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).

Planning and zoning enabling legislation: A state statute that authorizes cities (and sometimes counties) to establish planningagencies and planning commissions, to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans, and to adopt zoning ordinances andresolutions. Enabling statutes may also authorize regional planning agencies to prepare regional plans.

Planning consistency model: An approach to state growth management, pioneered by Oregon, where local governments mustadopt comprehensive plans consistent with statewide planning goals and regulations consistent with their local compre-hensive plans (Wickersham 1996, 1994).

Quiet revolution: The famous term coined by Fred Bosselman and David Callies (1971) to describe the first wave of environ-mental and land use controls adopted by states in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Second wave: A term originally coined by John DeGrove (xiii) to characterize the second period of state growth managementprogram history. The second wave lasted from 1985 to approximately 1988, when Florida overhauled its state growthmanagement laws and certain (New England) states adopted growth management programs (Weitz forthcoming).

Smart growth: The most recent (fourth) wave of activity by states to require or encourage state, regional, and local growthmanagement. Smart-growth laws in Tennessee and Arizona (1998) symbolize the smart-growth movement. In the contextof the popular literature, smart growth has more general but inadequately defined meanings.

Special regional growth management program: A state-sponsored growth management program for a special substate or bistategeographic region that goes beyond MLDC provisions for critical areas to include one or more additional elements of

state growth management programs.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).

State growth management program: A program sponsored by a state that, at a minimum, combines in a single statute (1) provi-sions for local or regional land development (comprehensive) planning, whether mandatory or optional for all or justsome local governments; and (2) a state land planning agency or commission or regional commission(s) with authority toreview and approve local land development (comprehensive) plans.

State land classification plan: An element or component of a state growth management program (such as Hawaiis) that classi-fies (but does not necessarily regulate) all land in the state into land use districts (e.g., urban, rural agricultural, and con-servation) (Wickersham 1996) and that may precede or substitute for a state land development (comprehensive) plan.

(continued)


7/29/2019 Weitz 1999

8/73

datory local comprehensive planning legislation, butthat legislationwas tabledbytheIowa Senate. Note thatRosenbaums definition of mandatory local compre-hensive planning legislationis notunconditional (seeCobb 1998) because the typical statute requires all ju-risdictions in the state which exercise land use regulatory

powers to developa comprehensive plan (p.18, empha-sis added). Only six states, drawn from the list of thir-teen states that mandated local comprehensive plan-ning as of December 1975, also have enacted laws thatmandate local zoning. These states are Arizona in 1974,California in 1970, Idaho in 1975, Nebraska in 1975, Ne-vada in 1973, and Oregon in 1969and 1973 (Rosenbaum

1976).After consideringcourt decisions in addition to state

enabling statutes, DiMento (1992) finds that fourteenstates prohibit the adoption of local zoning ordinanceswithout the adoption of a comprehensive plan. This is,but not the same as, an unconditional mandate to plan.The most recent survey of state planning mandates,completed in 1997 by the American Planning Associa-tionsGrowing Smart program, finds that fifteenstatesmake planning a mandate, meaning that local govern-mentsmust plan andthereareno conditionsattachedtothe mandate (i.e., unconditional local planning man-date), twenty-five states make planning conditionallymandatory, andthe remainingten statesmake planningoptional (Cobb 1998, 23). The fifteen states that uncon-ditionally mandate local comprehensive planning ac-cording to Cobb (1998) are Alaska, California, Dela-ware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Hawaii, Idaho,Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Is-land, South Dakota, andWashington. Many of these fif-teen states are well represented in the literature asgrowth management states. However, others such asAlaska, Idaho,Kentucky, Nebraska, Nevada, andSouth

Dakota are not discussed in the literature and despite alocal comprehensive planning mandate they are nottypically considered to be growth management states.

Two observations need to be made about Cobbs listof fifteen states that unconditionally mandate localcomprehensiveplanning. First, the listdoesnot includeseveral states that are commonly characterized asgrowth management states (i.e., Maine, Maryland,New Jersey, and Vermont). These states are almost uni-versally included in the state growth management lit-erature even if, according to Cobb (1998), they do notunconditionally mandate local planning. Maine, whichrepealed its 1988 law that mandated planning and re-

placed it with optional planning in 1992 (Howitt 1993;Adams 1991; Rand 1992), New Jersey, and Vermont arecollaborative partnerships rather than local compre-hensive planning mandates (Berke 1998).

Second, Cobb includes two states in his list of fifteenstatesthat shouldbe excluded andjudgesnot to includeone state that should be included. He classifies Georgiaas having an unconditional local planning mandateeven thoughGeorge encourages, butdoes notmandate,local planning (see Callies 1994b; DeGrove 1992; Whor-ton 1989). Indeed, local planning in Georgia, Maine,New Jersey, and Vermont is voluntary (Porter 1997;Stroud 1996). Washington States mandate to plan thatextends onlyto certain counties, and cities within thosecounties, is based on a county decennial populationgrowth rate; not all local governments in WashingtonState are subject to an unconditional mandate to plan.Cobbs excludes Maryland. However, a review of theliterature suggests that Maryland mandates local com-prehensive planning (Cohen and McAbee-Cummings1998). The inclusion of states that do not actually man-date local comprehensive planning implies that uncon-ditional mandatory local comprehensive planning is


State land development plan: A statement in words, maps, illustrations, or other media that communicates objectives, policies,and standards to guide public and private development of land within the state as a whole, or within a region designated

by rule and that includes a short-term program of public actions (American Law Institute 1974).

State land planning agency: An administrative arm of state government, whether a state department or commission, author-ized to implement a state growth management program, usually with authority to oversee regional or local land use

planning.Statewide planning goals: A set of goals intended to guide state, regional, or local planning efforts, with which local or regional

plans (and sometimes regulations) must be consistent.

Substate program: A program that is less than areally comprehensive but that contains a geographic area composed of morethan one political jurisdiction.

Third wave: A third era in the history of state growth management programs, from approximately 1989 to 1997, during whicha new set of growth management programs were adopted (Weitz forthcoming).

Unconditional local comprehensive planning mandate: A state requirement that cities or counties prepare and adopt local compre-hensive plans, unadulterated to the extent that there are no qualifying conditions under which the mandate applies (i.e.,no strings are attached to the mandate) (based on Cobb 1998).

TABLE 2 Continued


7/29/2019 Weitz 1999

9/73

not necessarily a qualification for a state to be includedon the list of state growth management programs.

4. STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY

One of the most common elements of a state growthmanagement program is the establishment of a stateagency or commission to direct state planning efforts.

Hawaiis 1961 land use law established a State LandUse Commission and gave certain planning functionsto the State Department of Planning and Economic De-velopment (DeGrove 1984). Oregons Senate Bill 100(1973) established both a Land Conservation and De-velopment Commission and Department. The Adiron-dack Park Agency, created in 1971 in New YorkState, isa state entity responsible fora substate growthmanage-ment program. Florida establishedthe State Land Plan-ning Agency as part of its Environmental Landand Water

Management Act of 1972. Land use commissions werealso established in Colorado in 1970 (DeGrove 1984),Maine in 1971 (Rand 1992), and Wyoming in 1975 (Pel-

ham1979; Moss 1977).New Jerseyestablished an Officeof State Planning and State Planning Commission aspart of its 1985 planning act (Lawrence and Lussenhop1994). Both entities are located within the states Treas-ury Department (DeGrove 1992).

Other states have designated or reconstituted exist-ing agencies as state land planning agencies. In Maine,the Office of Comprehensive Planning was establishedwithin the Department of Economic and CommunityDevelopment (DeGrove 1992). In Vermont, the Depart-ment of Housing and Community Affairs receivedfunding and support to implement Act 200 (1988), andin Maine theDivision of State Planning wasestablished

toreviewlocalcomprehensive plans (DeGrove1992).InGeorgia, the Department of Community Affairs wasdesignated as the responsible state agency pursuant tothe Georgia Planning Act of 1989. In Washington State,the Department of Community Development (nowCommunity, Trade, and Economic Development)serves as the administrative agency for the statesgrowth management program. Indeed, every stategrowth management program requires an administra-tive agency or commission.

Regional commissions are sometimes established inlieu of, or in addition to, a state agency or commission.

Vermonts Act 250 (1970) established a state environ-mental board to hear appeals and multicounty districtsto review development proposals (DeGrove 1984).Mandatory regional planning entities exist in Florida,Georgia, and Vermont.

5. STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The preparation of a state land development or com-prehensive plan is often an element of state growthmanagement programs. California was preparing acomprehensive state development plan in the mid-

1960s (Dyckman 1964). Vermont adopted a Capabilityand Development Plan under Act 85 in 1973. Hawaiiadopteda state comprehensive plan in 1978via Act 100.Florida also prepared its first state comprehensive planin 1978 and in 1986 completed a State Land Develop-ment Plan (Florida Department of Community Affairs1989). Rhode Islands growth management program

(1988)includes a state guide plan. Local comprehensiveplans must be consistent with the Rhode Island stateguide (DeGrove 1992). New Jersey prepared prelimi-nary (1989)andinterim(1994)versions of a State Devel-opment and Redevelopment Plan (Gottlieb and Reilly1994; Epling 1993). Georgias law calls for the prepara-tion of a state comprehensive plan, but it has not yetbeen developed.

As noted in Table 1, state land classification planssometimes precede or substitute forstate land develop-ment plans. Mann and Miles (1979) note that state landclassification existed in Alaska for planning purposes

only, Connecticut (under development in 1979), Dela-ware, Hawaii, Maine, and Maryland. Vermont also es-tablished a land use classification system in the early1970s (Morris 1995). New Yorks Adirondack ParkAgency used a land classification approach in prepar-ing plans and regulations for the Adirondack Park.Rhode Islands LandUse2010Plan(enacted in 1989) in-cludes a land capability map (Porter 1996b).

Another alternative to adopting a state plan is to pre-pare statewide planning goals, an approach Oregonpioneered in 1973. Colorado adopted state land usepolicies and Idaho prepared a draft land use policy pa-per in the late 1970s (Council of State Governments

1978). Maines growth management program (estab-lished in 1988) is framed by ten statutory state goals, asis Rhode Islands program (DeGrove 1992). Washing-ton States Growth Management Act specifies thirteenstate goals. In Maryland, statewide planning goals arecalledvisions (Cohenand McAbee-Cummings1998).

State agency coordination is another variation ofstate planning that may be adopted in addition to, or inlieuof, a state land development (comprehensive) plan.Oregon has a program element to prepare, to review,and to adopt state agency programs. Florida has alsoimplementedan approach tostate agencycoordination;however, the failure to integrate state functional plans

and regulatory approaches has been one of the majordisappointments in the implementation of the growthmanagement system (DeGrove 1992, 26). Designersand administrators of Georgias coordinated planningprogram have tried to integrate state agency effortsthrough the governors DevelopmentCouncil. Mainesprogram appears to require state agency reports todemonstrate consistency with the Comprehensive Plan-ning and Land Use Regulation Act of 1988, as does Ver-monts Act 200 (Innes 1993).



7/29/2019 Weitz 1999

10/73

6. SPECIAL REGIONAL APPROACHES

The literature refers to several special regional pro-grams that in many instances go beyond the regulationof critical environmental areas. In addition to NewYorks Adirondack Park Agency, substate regional pro-grams exist in the San Francisco Bay Area (Conserva-

tion and Development Commission established in1965); Marthas Vineyard (established in 1974) andCape Cod (established in 1989), Massachusetts; and theHackensack Meadowlands (established in 1968) andthe Pinelands (established in 1979) in New Jersey. Bis-tate planning compacts exist for regional planning andregulationin theLake Tahoe basin in CaliforniaandNe-vada (Strong 1984) and the Columbia River Gorge inOregon and Washington (Abbott et al. 1997; Adler1994).

II. HOW MANY STATE GROWTHMANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ARE THERE?

The literature contains many references to thenumber of states with significant state land use pro-grams. Rubino and Wagner (1972) find that ten stateshad adopted major forms of state land use manage-ment: Hawaii (land use law enacted in 1961), Colorado(Land Use Act of 1971), Delaware (Coastal Zone Act of1971), Maine (state management of unorganized terri-tories in 1969),Massachusetts (critical-area program es-tablished in 1963), Michigan (shorelines managementenacted in 1970), New York (Adirondack Park estab-lished in 1971), Oregon (mandatory planning and zon-ingenacted in 1969),Vermont (site development review

established in 1970), and Wisconsin (shoreline zoninglaw of 1965). Some of these programs (e.g., Delaware,Massachusetts, Michigan, and Wisconsin) are bettercharacterized as variations of Areas of Critical StateConcern programs (i.e., critical-area programs).Others,such as Vermont and Maine, appear to be better classi-fied as Developmentof Regional Impact programs (i.e.,large-scale development review programs).

Wickersham (1996) finds that between 1968 and1974, California, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Ne-vada, New York, Oregon, and Vermont passed statutesthat shifted considerable regulatory power over landuse to the state or regional level (p. 25A-12). Popper

(1988) suggests that by 1975, the quiet revolution hadachieved at least twenty new environmentally-orientedstate land use laws, mostly in the Northeast, the upperMidwest, and the far West (p. 293). Patton and Patton(1975) find that as of September1974, twenty-two stateshad land use planning programs under way. Some ofthese efforts undoubtedly failed shortly after they wereestablished. For example, Kundell et al. (1989) docu-ment Georgias unsuccessful attempt to pass vital areaslegislation. Patton and Patton (1975) also note that Ha-

waii, Florida, Maine, Oregon, and Vermont havepassed important procedural reforms for state landuse planning and control and that more than thirtystates are actively exploring alternative approachesthrough citizen commissions, legislative hearings, oradministrative task forces (p. 322). McDowell (1986)states that bythemid-1970s,every state hadsome type

of land-use controls, though most relied on permits.Nevertheless, eight states hadmuch broader state-wideland-use control programs (p. 50). Moss (1977) findsthat nine states (Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland,Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, and Wyo-ming) had adopted a state land use program of somesort. Mann and Miles (1979) note that a growth strat-egy(efficient utilization of land resources)was thought tobe a growing concern in eighteen states in 1979 (p. 51).

Whether there were nine, ten, eighteen, or anothernumber of states with notable programs during thequiet revolutiondepends, of course,on theexact defini-

tion of what constitutes a state growth managementprogram. The literature of the 1970s indicates thatscholars have intermingled the various elements ofstate growth management in their discussionsof whichstates have land use and growth management pro-grams, without making distinctions as to program ele-ments or types. As described below, scholars of the1990s have carried forth this tradition by not distin-guishing between the various elements of programs in-cluded in theirlists of states with significant land use orgrowth management programs.

Meeks (1990a) finds that state legislative activism inthe area of growth management exists in nine states

Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,Maine, New Jersey, Rhode Is-land,Oregon, Vermont,andWashington.Meekss workwas published prior to passage of Marylands growthmanagement law in 1992. Lewis (1992) reports that tenstates have adopted statewide growth managementlaws. Lewiss map of growth management states in-cludes Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland,New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington (andwas probably intended to include Rhode Island). Lib-erty (1992) cites nine states that have adopted growthmanagement programs or fundamentally revised exist-ing programs. These states are Florida, Georgia, Maine,Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia (Chesapeake

BayPreservation Actof 1988), Vermont,and Washington.Libertys list differs in its inclusion of Virginia and itsexclusion of Hawaii and Rhode Island.

Burby and colleagues (1993) report that ten stateshave adopted statewide comprehensive growth man-agement programs that either require or strongly en-courage local governments to prepare and adopt com-prehensive plans (p. 3), including Florida, Georgia,Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, RhodeIsland, Vermont, and Washington. Weatherby and Witt



7/29/2019 Weitz 1999

11/73

(1994) indicate that as of April 1991, prior to the enact-ment of Marylands 1992 growthmanagement law, ninestates (Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey,Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) hadadopted comprehensive statewide growth manage-ment laws. Wickersham (1994) also identifies ninestates with planning consistency model statutes, in-

cluding Maryland, but excluding Hawaii.Salkin (1993) identifies eleven states that have pro-

grams that encourage or require statewide comprehen-sive planning or growth management plans: Delaware,Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Jer-sey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington(p. 237). Salkins (1993) list is similar to the widely citedlist of ten states recognized for their state growth man-agement programs (Weatherby and Witt 1994; Burbyand colleagues 1993; Lewis 1992; Meeks 1990a). How-ever, Salkin also recognizes Delaware. Bollens (1993)notes that thirteen states have since 1970 independ-

ently established comprehensive (multifunctional)planning legislation applicable to all their localities orto specific subareas (p. 213). These states include Cali-fornia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland,Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, RhodeIsland, Vermont, and Washington. Note that Bollenslist includes three states (California, Massachusetts,and New York) that have special regional programs.These programs are not generally considered to consti-tute statewide programs.

Nelson (1995b) finds that California, Florida, Ha-waii, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Is-land, Vermont, and Washington have growth manage-

ment programs. Nelson (1995b) differs from the normby including California and excluding Georgia. He isone of the few scholars who explains why states such asGeorgia, Massachusetts, New York, and Colorado areexcluded from the designation of growth managementstates. Nelson (1995b) excludes Georgia because it isreally not a growth management stateyet (p. 74).Massachusetts, New York, and other states are ex-cluded by Nelsonbecause theirprograms apply only tosmall areas established by separate statutes. Coloradois excluded from Nelsons listbecause theColorado leg-islature abandoned growth management in the 1970s.Citing Bollens (1993), Nelson and Duncan (1995) indi-

cate that thirteen states have state-comprehensivegrowth legislation. In an earlier work, Nelson (1992b)finds that state programs in Colorado, Kansas, andWashington mandate local government planning buthave been ineffective, and that only four states explic-itly set forth to achieve an ultimate urban formFlor-ida, Maine, New Jersey, and Oregon (p. 101).

Porter (1996b) suggests that nine states (Florida,Georgia, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, RhodeIsland, Vermont,and Washington)havecomprehensive

statewide growth management programs. Note that heexcludes Hawaii. Baer (1997) indicates that at leastfourteen states now have comprehensive growth pro-grams, either statewide or aimed at particular subar-eas (p. 329), but he does not provide a list or map ofthose growth management states. Burby and Dalton(1994) find that eighteen states now mandate local

comprehensive plans and, in some cases, also requirehazards elements of those plans (p. 230).

As with scholars of the quiet revolution and the sec-ond wave of state growth management program his-tory, more recent reports from scholars exhibit somevariation in thenumberof stateswith statewidegrowthmanagement programs. Meeks (1990a) reports thatseven states have growth strategies commissions orhave heldconferences with an intent to developgrowthmanagement legislation. These states are California,Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wash-ington, andWest Virginia. Other scholars identify some

of the same states but add different states to their lists.For example, Diamond and Noonan (1996), DeGrove(1992), and Salkin (1993) find that statewide growthmanagement legislation has recently been consideredin California, Connecticut, New York, North Carolina,Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Seventeen of twenty stateslocated on the West and East Coasts of the United Stateshave or are considering adoption of some kind ofgrowth management strategy, according to Burchell(1993). South Carolina adopted the Local GovernmentComprehensive Planning Enabling Act of 1994, which re-vamped the states planning enabling legislation (Sulli-van and Pelham 1995). Yet, that enabling act reform

does not appear to constitute a growth managementact. Other efforts to encourage regional growth man-agement are under way in Michigan and South Caro-lina, and interest in containing sprawl has surfaced inMaryland, Colorado, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,Minnesota, and Vermont (Leo et al. 1998).

Two states, Arizona (Colton and DiTullio 1999) andTennessee (American Planning Association 1998b;Peirce 1998) adopted significant mandates for localgrowth management in 1998, although state roles inthese programs areat present weak or uncertain. HouseBill 1468, a growth management act, was introduced inNorth Carolinas General Assembly in 1999, but the

likelihood of its passage at the time of this writing isconsidered doubtful.A wave of smartgrowth legisla-tive proposals appear to be underway now in otherstates across the nation.

As noted above, the literature often quantifies thenumber of states that have implemented state growthmanagement programs, but scholars typically do notdefinewhy they include certain statesbutexcludedoth-ers. What are the specific characteristics that qualify astate as having a state growth management program?



7/29/2019 Weitz 1999

12/73

There again is no scholarly consensus. However, muchof the literature seems to conclude that there are tennoteworthy state growth management programs: Flor-ida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey,Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington(Dean 1996; Callies 1994b; Burby and colleagues 1993;Lewis 1992).

The existence of planning andzoning enabling legis-lation alone is not enough to be considered growthmanagement. Generally, all states have planning andzoning enabling legislation. A state mandate that all orsome local governments prepare comprehensive plansis also apparently not enough to qualify a state as agrowth management program. If mandatory compre-hensive planning forsomeor all local governments wassufficient to qualify a state as a growth managementstate, then according to this literature review, manyother states would be considered growth managementstates, including Alaska,Arizona, California,Colorado,

Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, and South Dakota, amongothers.

One criterionthatappears tobe essential interms ofadesignation as a growth management state is the statesactual land use role. If a state reviews local comprehen-sive plans or has an agency that reviews plans in a sub-state region, it is often included on the list of growthmanagement states (see Porter 1996b). If the states rolein the review of local comprehensive plans is weak ornonexistent, such as in California and Colorado, thestate is typically excluded from the list of growth man-agement states. As noted in Table 1, another commonelement of state growth management programs is that

virtuallyall of thesesystemsare based on a state plan orstate goals (Callies 1994b). John DeGrove (1993), aptlycalled the dean of growth managers (Porter 1993),finds that consistency is the thread that holds togetherstate growth management systems. Areal comprehen-siveness (i.e., statewide versus regional or substate ap-plication) is one criterion that is often used to excludestates from the list of growth management states. Forexample, New Yorks regional growth managementprogram for the Adirondack Park is typically excludedfrom lists of growth management states.

To attempt to bring resolution to this issue, I suggestthat a state growth management program is best de-scribed as a program that, at minimum, combines in asingle statute (1) provisions for local or regional landdevelopment (comprehensive) planning (whethermandatoryor optional for all or just some local govern-ments), and(2)a state landplanningagency or commis-sion or regional commission(s) that has the authority toreview and to approve local comprehensive plans.Questions about what exactly constitutes a compre-hensive program and how many states have compre-hensive programswillprobablycontinuetobedebated.

And, I have deliberately avoided tryingto provide a de-finitive answer as to the exact number of growth man-agement states at a given point in time to avoidcontrib-uting further to the inconsistencies in the literature.

III. LITERATURE ON SELECTED STATES

A. California

California appears to be one of the first states to re-quire and prepare a state development plan (Dyckman1964). The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Devel-opment Commission was established by law in 1965(Godschalk 1986; Bosselman and Callies 1971). TheCalifornia-Nevada Tahoe Regional Planning Compact(enacted in 1969) and the Tahoe Regional PlanningAgency have received someattention (Strong 1984; Na-than and Barusch 1978; Bosselman and Callies 1971), ashas the California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,which was established in 1967 (Strong 1984). Califor-

nias coastal program of the 1970s and 1980s has re-ceived much attention in the literature (Bollens 1993,1992; Fischer 1985; DeGrove 1984; Mazmanian and Sa-batier 1983). Indeed, California is better known for itscoastal program than for its local comprehensive plan-ning mandate. Fulton (1991) finds that the state man-dated that zoning ordinances be consistent with com-prehensive plans in 1971. Burby and May (1997) andFulton (1991) indicate that cities and counties weremandated to plan as early as 1937.

Despite the fact that California is one of the firststates to mandate local comprehensive planning andthat it has a well-known coastal program and has

adopted innovative regional land use programs in theLake Tahoe Basin and San Francisco Bay Area, the stateis often excluded from the list of growth managementstates. Its exclusion is probably attributable to the factthat the state has provided little oversight of local plan-ning (Fulton 1993; Stone and Seymour 1993). However,Nelson (1995b), Nelson and Duncan (1995), Bollens(1993, 1992), Durant et al. (1993), and Ndubisi and Dyer(1992) do classify California as a growth managementstate. California probably deserves inclusion as a sig-nificant growth management state because of its localplanning mandate (regardless of the oversight it re-ceives) and its substate and critical-area programs.

However, theapparent lack of a consistency frameworksuggests that it does not maintain a comprehensiveprogram. For chapter-length overviews of state plan-ning in California, seeBurbyandMay (1997)and Fulton(1993).

B. Colorado

Colorado has had a curious and puzzling history ofstate land use planning. The states first land use act,passed in 1970, is described in Bosselman and Callies



7/29/2019 Weitz 1999

13/73

(1971). DeGrove (1984) provides one of the most de-tailed accounts of Colorados land use program duringthe quiet revolution, including the enactment of theLand UseAct in1970andadoptionofanewlanduselaw(House Bill 1041) in 1974 (Porter 1997; DeGrove 1984).Colorados 1974 law gave local governments responsi-bility for land use and growth management and only an

ambiguous and uncertain (p. 294) role for the state inthe process. The states approach, which providesbroad land use powers to local governments but littlerole for the state in land use planning (DeGrove 1984),has been described as schizophrenic (Diamond andNoonan1996). Itsprogram wasfoundto be languishingby Popper (1988). Colorados land use program beganwith a brave start but failed to evolve because of parti-san politics (DeGrove 1993), and it has also been crip-pled by adverse court decisions (DeGrove 1984; De-Grove and Metzger 1993). The State Land UseCommission narrowly escaped abolition in 1977 (De-

Grove 1984).Colorado is, forvarious reasons, rarelydesignatedasa growth management state in the literature, eventhough it adopted critical-area legislation and has beenfound to mandate comprehensive planning (Rosen-baum 1976). Like California, Colorados exclusion fromthe list of growth management states is probably the re-sult of the limited state role in the review of local com-prehensive plans. Colorado is probably justifiably ex-cluded from the list of 1990s growth managementstates, even if the state has exercised considerable inter-est in land use in the past.

C. Delaware

In 1971, Delaware enacted a law that banned heavyindustry from portions of itscoastal zone (Kundell et al.1989; Patton and Patton 1975; Bosselman and Callies1971). Delaware is usually not included in discussionsof state growth management programs. However,Mann andMiles (1979) reported that Delaware wasoneof three states (the others are Hawaii and Maine) with alegally enforceable state land use classification. Fur-thermore, Delaware passed a statewide growth man-agement law in 1988, titled the Quality of Life Act (Kelly1993; Fulton 1991). Burby et al. (1993) find that Dela-ware and several other states mandate local compre-hensive planning, yet they have not enacted compre-hensive growth management legislation. Perhapsbecause it is weak on state oversight of comprehensiveplanning, or because it is a small state with a relativelyunknown program, Delaware is frequently excludedfrom the list of growth management states. Salkin(1993) is one of the few authors who recognizes Dela-wares program and includes it in a list of growth man-agement states. Few if any works have been published

on Delawares state land use program. More work isneeded to determine if Delaware is a growth manage-ment state.

D. Florida

Floridas growth management program has beenrecognized nationally since the early 1970s (OConnell1986). The program is considered to be the most com-prehensive of all the states (Pelham 1993) and is one ofthetwo most extensively studiedprograms (along withOregon). Floridas Environmental Land and Water Man-agement Act of 1972 appears to be the closest a law hascome to adopting the precise language of the MLDC(Pelham 1979; Godschalk 1986; Myers 1974a). Severalmajor works have been written about land use andgrowthmanagement inFlorida,includingland andwa-ter policies of the 1970s (Pelham 1979; Carter 1974), theoverhaul of growth management laws in the mid-1980s(DeGrove and Juergensmeyer 1986; Pelham et al. 1985),

andotheraccounts (Wallis1993;DeHaven-Smith1991).For chapters on Floridas program, see Burby andMay (1997), Pelham (1993), and DeGrove (1992, 1984).For an article about Floridas program during the quietrevolution, see McCahill (1974). Articles about activi-ties in the 1980s are provided by Stroud and OConnell(1986)and SiemonandLarsen(1985). Fora statusreportof local planning in Florida in the early 1990s, seeMcKay (1991). Articles that highlight Floridas concur-rency requirements include Stuart (1994) and Charlier(1991). For a critique of some of the fundamental prem-ises of Floridas growth management program, see Au-dirac and colleagues (1990).

E. Georgia

Georgia is considered to be a growth managementstate by almost all state growth management programscholars. Nelson (1995b) is one exception. Cobb (1998)includes Georgiain his listof fifteen states that mandatelocal planning, although local planning in the state isstrongly encouraged, not mandated. For a chapter onGeorgias coordinated planning program, see DeGrove(1992). Kundell and colleagues (1989) provide an ac-count of land use planning in Georgia immediatelyprior to the adoption of the Planning Act of 1989.Ndubisi and Dyer (1992) include Georgia as a casestudy in their analysis of the regional components ofstate growth management programs. For an earlieroverview of Georgias coordinated planning program,see Nelson (1990b). West (1992) and Whorton (1989)provide additional information on Georgia. For ananalysis of the regional component of Georgias pro-gram, see Starnes (1993). The Georgia Department ofCommunity Affairs (1996a) provides a five-year statusreport on Georgias program.



7/29/2019 Weitz 1999

14/73

F. Hawaii

Hawaiis land use planning program is the first andmost rigorous of the state growth management pro-grams (Callies 1994b, 1993; Kelly 1993; Bosselman1986). It is the inspiration and prototype for the quietrevolution (Callies 1980). Nevertheless, Hawaii does

not appear on everyones list of growth managementstates (e.g., Porter 1996b; Wickersham 1994; Gale 1992;Liberty 1992), perhaps because of the states unique is-land geography and the low probability that its pro-gram will be repeated elsewhere.Hawaiis land uselaw(Act 187 of 1961) was firstchronicled by Bosselman andCallies (1971).

Callies has been the leading legal scholar on Ha-waiis program, with the publication of two books(1994a, 1984) and a chapter-length account (1993). Coo-per and Davis (1990) discuss the politics of HawaiisLand Use Commission, and DeGrove (1984) devotes achapter of his first book to the implementation of stateland use regulation in Hawaii. Bosselman (1986) de-scribes lessons that Florida can learn from Hawaiisexperience.

G. Maine

Maine is almost universally accepted as a growthmanagement state. However, neither Rosenbaum(1976) nor Cobb (1998) indicate that it has a local plan-ning mandate. In 1969, Maine passed its Site Location ofDevelopment Act, and in 1971 a shoreland zoning lawwas passed and the Land Use Regulation Commissionwas established (Rand 1992). In 1988, Maine enacted its

Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act,which mandated local planning. However, the law wassubsequently modified to make local planning op-tional. The most detailed account to date of Maines1988 actand subsequentstategrowthmanagementpro-gram modifications is provided by Howitt (1993), butalso see Rand (1992). DeGrove (1992) devotes a chapterto Maines land use program. For brief discussions onMaines land useprogram, seeAdams (1991)andLaitin(1988). Its historic regulation of unorganized territoriesand other state involvement has qualified Maine as agrowth management state, even though it does notmandate local comprehensive planning.

H. Maryland

Maryland passed what appears to be mandatory lo-cal comprehensive planning in 1992 after an attempt topass legislation in 1991 failed (Cohen and McAbee-Cummings 1998). A book devoted to Marylands pro-gram has apparently not been published. For signifi-cant works about Marylands program, see Cohen andMcAbee-Cummings (1998) and Noonan and Moran(1996). As a result of passing the Economic Growth, Re-

source Protection and Planning Act of 1992, Maryland isuniversally included on a list of growth managementstates by scholars writing during or after 1992. TheMaryland program combines critical-area regulationand the review of local comprehensive plans for com-pliance with state visions.

I. Massachusetts

Thisstate passed a wetlands protectionstatute in the1960s (McDowell 1986; Bosselman andCallies1971),es-tablished the Marthas Vineyard Commission in 1974(Lawlor 1992; Pelham 1979), and established the CapeCod Commission in 1990 (see Cape Cod Commission1996; Bollens 1990). Massachusetts is not typically in-cluded as a growth management state, even thoughCobb (1998) finds the state has an unconditional localplanning mandate and Bollens (1993, 1992) and NelsonandDuncan(1995)citesignificant regional programs inMarthas Vineyardand Cape Cod(see alsoWickersham

1996). If unconditional local comprehensive planningdoes exist in conjunction with the significant regionalprograms for Marthas Vineyard and Cape Cod, itwould be as justifiable to include Massachusetts on thelist of growth management states as it is to includeCalifornia.

J. Nevada

Nevada established a regional planning agency forthe Lake Tahoe region in 1968, following Californiaslead a year earlier. Nevada also is part of the bistateplanning compact creating the Tahoe Regional Plan-ning Agency in 1969 (Strong 1984). Nevada is fre-

quently excluded from the list of growth managementstates,even thoughit adoptedcritical-area legislation, alocal comprehensive planning mandate (Rosenbaum1976; also see Cobb 1998), and a local zoning mandate(Rosenbaum 1976) in 1973. Other scholars have recog-nized Nevada for its state role in land use management(Wickersham 1996; Moss1977; Patton andPatton 1975).One reason why Nevada may be excluded from the listof growth management states is because 86 percent ofits land area is publicly owned (Popper 1988). Otherreasons for Nevadas exclusion may be that the statesrole in reviewing land use plans and zoning ordinancesis probably limited or nonexistent, and it has not exer-cised its critical-area provisions (Pelham 1979).

K. New Jersey

New Jerseys combination of regional andstate plan-ning has earned New Jersey a universally acceptedplace on the list of growth management states. In thelate 1960s a regional program was created for the Hack-ensack Meadowlands (Pelham 1979; Grant 1978). NewJerseys efforts to adopt a state growth managementprogram in the 1970s were hampered by a severe eco-



7/29/2019 Weitz 1999

15/73

nomic recession (Guskind 1988). New Jerseys StatePlanning Act was passed in 1985 and signed into law in1986. It established a State Planning Commission, re-quired a State Development and Redevelopment Plan,and instituted the now well-known cross-acceptanceprocess for coordinating local plans with state goals.The act does not place planning requirements on local

government (Epling 1993), and the state plan empha-sizes incentives more than regulatory provisions(Guskind 1988). Since 1986, New Jersey has been uni-versally accepted as a growthmanagement state even iflocal comprehensive planning is not unconditionallymandated (Cobb1998).For themost detailed account ofNew Jerseys state planning program, see Luberoff(1993). For chapter- or article-length accounts of NewJerseys program, see Lawrence and Lussenhop (1994),DeGrove (1992), and Epling (1993, 1989). New Jersey isa leader in state planning and is one of the few states toemploy simulations and modeling on a statewide basis

(Gottlieb and Reilly 1994; Burchell 1993).L. New York

Given thelarge geographicarea covered by theman-dateabout 20 percent of thestates land area(Ulase-wicz 1986) and the breadth and strengths of its require-ments, New Yorks Adirondack Park Agency Act (1971)probably deserves inclusion as a state growth manage-ment program. However, because it only covers a sig-nificant subarea of thestate,NewYork is oftenexcludedfrom the list of significant growth management states.The Adirondack program is often called a critical-areaprogram (Beckley 1992; Nelson 1992b; Kundellandcol-

leagues 1989; DeGrove 1988), yet it also includes a largedevelopment review procedure anda local comprehen-sive planning program. At least two books have beenwritten about New Yorks program in the Adirondacks(Graham 1981; LiroffandDavis 1981).Ulasewicz (1986)and Davis (1798) provideshortdescriptions of land useplanning in the Adirondacks. For citations of literatureon this program duringthequiet revolution, see DAm-brosi (1976). Nolon (1996) examines the erosion of homerule in the Adirondack Park and argues against adopt-ing its coercive, top-down approach. New York consid-ered revisions to its existing land use laws in 1990(Salkin 1992).

M. Oregon

Along with Florida, Oregon is one of the most exten-sively studied growth management states. Oregon isuniversally included on the listof growth managementstates because of its mandate to plan and zone and itsstate review of plans and regulations to ensure compli-ance with statewide planning goals. An account of thepassage of Oregons program was published by theConservation Foundation (Little 1974). Pelham (1979)

devotes attention to Oregon in his book, State Land UsePlanning and Regulation. Major accounts of Oregonsprogram during the 1980s include Leonards ManagingOregons Growth (1983) and DeGroves Land Growth andPolitics (1984). Knaap and Nelsons The Regulated Land-scape (1992) and Abbott and colleagues Planning theOregon Way (1994) are two books that have been pub-

lished about Oregons statewide land use program inthe 1990s. For chapter-length overviews of Oregonsprogram, see Sullivan (1994, 1993) and Howe (1993).Kasowski (1991), Nelson (1990a), and Gordon (1988)provide brief discussions. Recent work on urbangrowth management in Oregon includes the OregonDepartment of Land Conservation and Development(1998,1991),Weitzand Moore (1998), OregonTranspor-tation and Growth Management Program (1997), andCogan Owens Cogan (1997). (See the listing for urbangrowth boundaries in the Index of Terms and Conceptsfor a more complete listing.) DeGrove (1994) describes

Oregons influence on other state programs. Leeman(1997) provides an economists critique of Oregonsprogram.

N. Rhode Island

RhodeIsland passed a law in 1978 that requires localcomprehensive plans and provides for a state monitor-ing role (Lawlor 1992). In 1988, the state enacted itsComprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act,which mandates local comprehensive planning. RhodeIsland is found by both Rosenbaum (1976) and Cobb(1998) to mandate local planning, and it is universallyrecognized as a growthmanagementstate;however, lit-

tle has been written about the 1978 law. Porter (1996b)notes that Rhode Island is one of three states (the othersare Florida and Oregon) that have more than twentyyears of experience administering comprehensivestatewide growth management programs. He alsonotes that Rhode Island established Land Use 2010 in1989, which includes a land capability map that identi-fies four categories of land use intensity. DeGrove(1992) provides a chapter-length description of RhodeIslands 1988 legislation (see also Varian 1993). For ashort description of the 1988 law, see Lawlor (1992).

O. Vermont

Vermontmakes thelist of growth management statesbecause of its well-known large-scale development re-view process (Act 250of 1970), its State Land CapabilityPlan (1973), the planning cousin of Act 250 (Dean1996), and its growth management law (Act 200 of1988). Neither Rosenbaum (1976) nor Cobb (1998) indi-cate that Vermont mandates local comprehensive plan-ning. DeGrove (1984) and Myers (1974b) provide de-tailed accounts of Act 250. Foran assessmentof Act 250,see Daniels and Lapping (1984). Melloni and Goetz



7/29/2019 Weitz 1999

16/73

(1993) and DeGrove (1992) provide chapter-lengthoverviews of Vermonts 1988 growth management pro-gram. Dean (1996) provides a brief perspective of Act250 after twenty-five years and discusses recent experi-ence with Act 200.

P. Washington

Washington was one of the earlier states to adopt ashorelines managementact (1971) that included a com-prehensive planning mandate and state agency reviewand approval of land use plans (Settle 1983; Bish 1982).For an account of Washington States unsuccessful ef-fort to adopt state land use planning during the quietrevolution, see Bagne (1975) andBosselman andCallies(1971). As of the 1990s, when the state passed growthmanagement laws, Washington is now universally ac-cepted as having a growth management program evenif not all counties and cities are required to prepare andadopt comprehensive plans. For discussions of Wash-

ington States Growth Management Act (1990, 1991), seeWashington State Department of Community, Trade,and Economic Development and League of WomenVoters of Washington (1997); Settle andGavigan (1993);Smith (1993); and DeGrove (1992). Settle and White(1998) and Lewis (1992) provide short articles. Pivo(1993) analyzes the local government implementationof the critical-area regulatory mandate of the Growth

Management Act. For a summary account of regulatoryreform,see WashingtonState Land UseStudy Commis-sion (1998), Durkan (1996), and Wells (1996).

Q. Wyoming

Rosenbaum (1976) and Moss (1977) find Wyomingsstate role in land use to be significant during the quietrevolution. This state passed a land use planning act in1975 (Rosenbaum 1976) and also passed critical-arearegulation (DeGrove 1988). Pelham (1979) describesWyomings land use program and finds that the statefollowed Oregons model in establishing a State LandUse Commission. However, scholars of the 1990s areunanimous in their decision to exclude Wyoming fromthe list of growth management states. Why it is ex-cludedis notclear from theliterature. Cobb (1998) findsthat Wyoming does not unconditionally mandate localplanning.

R. Other States

North Carolina is not a growth management state,but it is sometimes included in the literature (e.g., Du-rant et al. 1993; DeGrove 1984) as the result of the enact-ment of its successful Coastal Area Management Act of1974, which includes mandatory local comprehensiveplanning (DeGrove 1989, 1984; Owens 1985). Growthmanagement legislation in North Carolina has recently

been introduced; however, in-state observers considerit unlikely to pass, House Bill 1468 of the General As-sembly of North Carolina would address the need inthat state for local governments to adopt growth plans.Chapter-length accounts of state planning in NorthCarolina are provided by Burby and May (1997) andDeGrove (1984).

ArizonaandTennessee arethetwomostrecent addi-tions to the universe of growth management states.During the quiet revolution, Arizona passed manda-tory local comprehensive planning legislation andmandatory zoning legislation yet failed to pass criticalareas legislation. In 1998, Arizona passed a smartergrowth law that begins the framework for a growthmanagement program (Colton and DiTullio 1999);however, work there appears to be unfinished. Also in1998, the Tennessee state legislature passed an annexa-tion law that defied political wisdom and included amandate that local governments implement urban

growth boundaries (American Planning Association1998b; Peirce 1998). The relatively weak or undefinedstate role in the process of reviewinglocal growth man-agement plans might keep Tennessee off the list ofgrowth management states in the near future.

IV. CONCLUSION

During its four-decade history, state involvement ingrowth management has evolved through the quietrevolution, a second wave, a third wave, and now afourth(SmartGrowth) wave of state activity. Beginningwith Hawaii in 1961, andcontinuing most recently withSmart Growth legislation in Arizona and Tennessee,

many states have adopted significant state growthmanagement programs. This annotated bibliographydemonstrates that much variation remains with regardto how many growth management states there are andwhich statesare(orshould be) consideredgrowth man-agement states. The literature is replete with inconsis-tencies that stem from the lack of a commonly acceptedclassificationscheme andthe lack of agreementoncrite-ria for considering whether a state qualifies as a growthmanagement state. It is hoped that the six elements ofstate growth management programs presented in thisintroduction will help in future efforts to classify state

growth management programs.The literature shows that several states are univer-sally accepted as growth management states, eventhoughcriteriafortheirstatusarenotclearlyarticulatedin the literature. Florida, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey,Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, andWashingtonmakevirtually everyones list of significant or comprehen-sive growth management programs. Two other states,Georgia and Hawaii, are usually included on the list ofgrowth management states. There are some dissenters



7/29/2019 Weitz 1999

17/73

to the inclusion of Georgia and Hawaii, but most of thetime their reasons are unknown. Together, these tenstates constitute a core group of commonly acceptedgrowth management states. Beyond these ten states,scholarly consensus eludes us.

This literature review indicates that other states,such as Delaware, should be addedto the list of growth

management states or at least be considered as candi-dates for inclusion on the list. Others, such as Califor-nia, Massachusetts, and New York, have significantprograms that are sporadically included in discussionsof state growth management programs and that de-serve considerationeven thoughthey arenotvery com-prehensive (statewide) programs. If a local comprehen-sive planning mandate is sufficient to qualifya state as agrowth management state, the number of states on thelist would grow substantially. Debate regarding justhow many and which states are growth managementstates will undoubtedly continue until scholars adopt a

classification schemeanduseit consistently. Thesimpleclassification of program elements presentedhere is notexpected to end that debate, but it will stimulate think-ing about the need for criteria to determine the inclu-sion or exclusion of state programs on the list of growthmanagement states.

This annotated bibliography shows that a local com-prehensive planning mandate is not a prerequisite forinclusion on the list of growth management states. In-deed, thetrendnowis towardcollaborativemodelsthatencourage planning with incentives rather thanthrough the coercive reform models popularized dur-ing the quiet revolution (Weitz forthcoming).

Afew additionalobservationsaboutomissions in theliterature need to be made. Scholars have only recentlybegun the task of evaluating the successes and failuresof state growth management programs. (It is encourag-ing that the empirical evaluation literature is now be-ginning to blossom.) There appears to be little attentionto, or understanding of, the interrelationship betweenstate planning and zoning enabling statutes and stategrowth management programs. Are they one and thesame, or do they coexist? There are other significantgaps in the literature that deserve theattention of schol-ars. What has happened to some of the quiet revolutionreforms? Have scholars simply ignored some of the

programs in certain states, or have certain state pro-grams gone by the wayside? What about other statessuch as Nevada, Delaware, South Dakota, and Ken-tucky? Do these states deserve consideration? As DanielMandelker (1989) implied a decade ago, scholars needto devise and use better classification systems. Theyalso needto provide more careful qualifications in writ-ingaboutstate growth managementprograms, to avoidthe inconsistent condition into which the state growthmanagement literature itself has evolved.

V. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

001. Abbott, Carl. 1994. The Oregon planning style. In Plan-ning the Oregon way: A twenty-year evaluation, Carl Abbott,Deborah Howe,andSy Adler, eds. Corvallis:Oregon StateUniversity Press.

The author applies Daniel Elazars (American federalism: Aview from the states, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1972)concept of state political culture in discussing Oregonslanduseprogram.From1950to1970,Oregonmaintainedamoralisticpoliticalstructure thatemphasizedregulationand bureaucracy for the general public good. Oregonsland use program developed within the context of issuesdefined in moral terms, including strongsupport for envi-ronmental protection (e.g., the Willamette River green-way) and participatory processes (e.g., citizen input in de-veloping statewide planning goals). Abbott developsnotions of thepublic good andbureaucracy. Hearguesthattherationalplanning idea that thepublicinterestis discov-erable exists in Oregons program. Oregons ethos andplanning style accept the rational bureaucratic state at

something like face value.002. Abbott, Carl, SyAdler, andMargery P. Abbott. 1997. Plan-

ning a new West: The Columbia River Gorge National ScenicArea. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

This book represents the first major account of the bistateregional planning effort to protect the scenic resources oftheColumbiaRiver Gorgein Oregon andWashington.TheColumbia River Gorge NationalScenic Areawas createdin1986afterapprovalby lawmakersin Oregon andWashing-ton and adoption by the U.S. Congress as Public Law 99-564. The authors describe the politics of legislative adop-tion, thecreationof a management plan forthescenic area,and implementation experiences. They also compare the

Columbia River Gorge Commission with other regionalenvironmental management entities, including the CapeCod Commission, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,the Adirondack Park Agency, and the New Jersey Pine-lands Commission.

003. Abbott, Carl, Deborah Howe, and Sy Adler, eds. 1994.PlanningtheOregon way: Atwenty-yearevaluation. Corvallis:Oregon State University Press.

Along with Knaapand Nelsons (1992) work, this is one ofthetwo most detailed accounts of Oregonsstatewide landuse program in the 1990s. The book is an edited volumewith three parts and thirteen chapters. The political, eco-nomic, and legal foundations of Oregonsprogramarede-

scribed inpart 1. Substantiveplanningissuessuch ashous-ing, integrated transportation and land use planning, andregional facilities sitingareaddressedin part 2, along withtwochapters on rural planning issues.Part 3 provides per-spectivesandinterpretationsof Oregons program,includ-ing the states planning style (Abbott 1994), the effect ofOregonsprogram on other states(DeGrove1994),andtheneed fordevelopinga researchagenda(Howe 1994).Otherchapters from the book are abstracted in this bibliography(see Adler 1994; Howe 1994; Knaap 1994; Nelson1994; andSullivan 1994).



7/29/2019 Weitz 1999

18/73

004. Adams, Rick. 1991. Down easters take on growth man-agement. Planning 57, 8 (August): 26-28.

Maines Growth Management Act of 1988 established tengoals fordealing with growthand required that each of thestates cities and towns prepare a new comprehensiveplan. Prior to passage of the 1988 law, less than half of thecitiesand townshad comprehensiveplans,and some cities

did not even have planning staffs. Maines law takes a cuefrom Oregons land use law with regard to citizen partici-pation in the planning process. The author describes citi-zenparticipation strategies that have been employed in lo-cal comprehensive planning efforts. The state of MainesOffice of Comprehensive Planning suggests that the bestcomprehensive plans are those produced with the mostcitizen input.

005.Adler, Sy. 1994. The Oregon approach to integrating trans-portationandland useplanning. InPlanning theOregon way:

A twenty-year evaluation, Carl Abbott, Deborah Howe, andSy Adler, eds. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

The author traces the origins, context, structure, and dy-

namics of rule making for transportation planning in Ore-gon. The proposed transportation planning rule was ini-tially intended to restrict highway projects outside urbangrowth boundaries, to protect state highway investments,and to solidify a relationship between land use and trans-portation plans. Early drafts of the rule provided for lessreliance ontheautomobile in metropolitan areas through areduction in vehicle miles traveled. In reviewing the pro-posed rule, legal counsel for the Metropolitan Service Dis-trict (Portland regional government) charged that recon-sidering acknowledged land use plans in light oftransportation planning was a radical concept for rule-making (p. 137-38). The author concludes with observa-tions about the rules prospects for success.

006. American Instituteof Planners Committeeon State Plan-ning. 1959. State planning: Its function and organization.

Journal of the American Institute of Planners 25: 207-14.

This early reportdocuments a newmovement to revitalizestate government and

Weitz 1999

Documents

Transcript of Weitz 1999