Collaboration on land use plan calls for three steps

A good land use plan should be flexible and recognize that infrastructure is the key to land use planning. A community’s well-planned infrastructure naturally guides growth into the most advantageous patterns, without unduly manipulating land prices.

Greene County’s 2007 proposed land use plan was crafted internally, with little initial input from stakeholders. When the Greene County Commission unveiled the plan, commissioners were met with loud criticism and little support. The response to the plan was predictable because of the flawed approach to developing it.

Now the county has pledged a fresh start. In a Dec. 24 column published in Springfield Business Journal, Presiding Commissioner David Coonrod wrote of the need to collaborate on this important issue. If he is serious, he should take three foundational steps.

Mission statement

Step 1: Set one clear, overriding goal. What fundamental purpose should a land use plan achieve? Messages from the county have been mixed. Stated goals have included economic development, farmland preservation, environmental stewardship, controlling growth and maximizing growth. These often-conflicting points should be part of the discussion, but none of them represent the overriding purpose of the plan. The purpose of a land use plan should be to encourage land uses that maximize measurable benefits to the community as a whole.

A different approach

Step 2: Collaborate (and let the stakeholders drive!). Everyone agrees that collaboration is good, but not everybody agrees on the definition of collaboration. One could argue that what the county tried in 2007 was a form of collaboration because of eventual public input. Another definition of collaboration might be for the county to tweak that plan, then meet individually with one interest group after another to determine what parts of the plan each group can live with and what parts they cannot. That would be a mistake. And it would undermine any spirit of collaboration.

Consider the county’s efforts to work with the Farm Bureau. The Farm Bureau was the most outspoken critic of the original proposed land use plan, so it naturally has fallen at the top of the county’s list of collaborators. One farmland preservation “solution” adopted by some big-government states is to create a pool of taxpayer money that would purchase development rights from the farm owner at market price. The farm owners get full value for their farms (at taxpayer expense), but get to keep the property. The only rule is that the property can never be developed by that owner or any subsequent owner.

It could be a sweet deal for the farm owners, but terrible public policy for anyone else affected by land use or interested in affordability. Yet, if the Farm Bureau falls high in the pecking order (and if this happens to be their policy objective), it would be unlikely that any other stakeholder would have meaningful input on this potentially explosive issue. The negotiating boundaries for each group would be set by the groups higher on the list.

The one-by-one approach is backward. Instead of the government writing a plan and letting those affected by it try to change it, let the community write the plan. The commission can then make adjustments to limit liability, manage fiscal challenges, etc. The Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce has requested that the commission take this approach to write a whole new plan. The commission should jump at the opportunity.

Stirring the pot

Step 3: Avoid divisive rhetoric. There is no reason to talk publicly about resolving some imagined conflict between farmers and developers. No such conflict exists. Their only negotiation is regarding just how wealthy the developers are going to make farmers who have voluntarily decided to sell their land.

“Loss of farmland” rhetoric is similarly divisive and inaccurate. In his column, Commissioner Coonrod wrote that Greene County “loses an average of nearly 800 acres of farmland each year to urban development.” Actually, almost none of the land developed annually is actively being farmed when it is converted. It usually is vacant land that is not being used at all. The fact that it potentially “could” be farmed doesn’t make it farmland any more than the fact that it could be developed makes it a neighborhood. Further, that land is not “lost.” No black hole exists where it once was. The land has been converted to an economically advantageous use. Rhetoric like this makes collaboration more difficult, and care should be taken to avoid it.

We all want what is best for our community, even if we won’t always agree on the specifics. If the commission wants to make this effort a successful collaboration, these are three simple steps toward that goal.

Matt Morrow is executive officer of the Home Builders Association of Greater Springfield. He can be reached at mmorrow@springfieldhba.com.[[In-content Ad]]