Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, March 13, 1994 TAG: 9403150175
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The legislation is sound as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. It is the result of a well-intentioned effort, starting in 1989, to help the state develop tools to guide development, particularly in the state's burgeoning Urban Crescent. But the measure as written deals only with improving planning and coordination among four state secretariats: Commerce and Trade, Transportation, Finance, and Natural Resources.
The bill was carried over because the new Republican administration suggested it might want to expand the act to other areas of state government, such as education, health and human services, public safety, and administration. Bully. All of them undoubtedly would benefit from long-range planning and coordination. Various parts of government need to share knowledge, resources and a common vision.
But where is the local component?
"All politics is local," the late House Speaker Tip O'Neill was fond of observing. The same might be said of planning, at least when it comes to land use. Where but on the local level are zoning maps drawn? Where but on the local level can comprehensive land-use plans be conceived and implemented to ensure growth that enhances communities and is sustainable? Where but on the local level can regional alliances be forged to meet needs and make use of resources that aren't bounded by political lines?
Yet - and here is the rub - where but on the state level can the legal, financial and political will be mustered to induce regional planning at the local level throughout Virginia?
After holding hearings across the state in 1991, the 33 members of the Commission on Population Growth and Development crafted 12 statewide planning goals, among them: Encourage growth that promotes economic opportunity and improves the quality of life for all the state's citizens; provide incentives for economic development in rural and urban areas; encourage "compact and efficient patterns of development and minimize consumption of land ... ;" protect Virginia's open spaces, scenic and natural areas, and cultural and historic resources.
All of which sounds good. But what will the Growth Strategies Act require of Virginia's localities to help accomplish such worthy goals? Basically, nothing.
Among 14 "findings," or points of agreement, reached by commission members in 1991 were two promising to encourage stronger local planning:
n"Local governments may need additional incentives and resources as well as powers to manage growth, even though some may not be using all powers at their disposal."
n"The state needs to provide localities with mechanisms for achieving regional solutions."
By 1993, one local requirement had survived debate and made it into the proposed legislation: Localities should send their comprehensive plans to the Department of Planning and Budget and the State Library and Archives. Wow.
Because of opposition from localities, commission members had decided to concentrate on the state's need to develop its own strategies for long-term planning. They apparently wanted to avoid handing mandates to local governments - and the uproar that such efforts inevitably cause in Virginia, where planning is mistakenly viewed as telling people what to do with their land.
The Disney's America project is only the latest illustration of regional interdependence and the need for regional planning. The proposal's friends and foes alike must concede that it fits right into the plans Prince William County has for itself, while threatening to undermine efforts of neighboring Fauquier to maintain its rural character.
Conflicts such as these will continue to arise as long as strong local planning tied to a regional vision remains a distant goal to be talked about wistfully.
The Growth Strategies Act sent to the General Assembly, now delayed, would provide some good things for Virginia, including a "big-picture" planning process that would help the state set priorities for infrastructure, facilities and programs - and that would be tied to budgeting.
In 1995, its final year of life, the growth commission hopes to focus its efforts on regionalism. But what will have changed by then, except the landscape?
For decades in Virginia, study has followed study, commission followed commission, all underscoring the need for regional planning. When it finally arrives, it will have to attend, more than anything else, to the shameful effects of no planning.
Keywords:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1994
by CNB