Oklahoma

Compared to the accelerated population growth in several nearby states — Arizona's 40 percent, Texas's 22.8 percent, and New Mexico's 20.1 percent⁽¹⁾ — Oklahoma's population grew slightly less than 10 percent between 1990 and 2000.⁽²⁾ The slower rate has raised a number of concerns, not the least of which was the state losing one of its six congressional seats because of redistricting based on the 2000 population figures.

And unlike some of its neighbors — such as Colorado, New Mexico and Arkansas where discussions and efforts to secure planning law reforms and smart growth measures are well underway — beyond discussions amongst a handful of professional organizations including the Oklahoma Chapter of APA, similar developments have not occurred in the Sooner State.

Oklahoma is one of about a dozen states that have yet to modernized their statutes that enable local governments to do comprehensive planning. Such laws in Oklahoma remain virtually identical to the original measure adopted in 1947, which was based largely on model legislation developed in the 1920s.⁽³⁾

Currently the state's comprehensive planning requirements do not address protection of threatened or endangered species,⁽⁴⁾ protection of historic and cultural resources, enhancement of community appearance, or affordable housing needs. In addition, zoning decisions are not required to be based on a long-range plan or vision. Also, because comprehensive plans are not required to be followed or regularly updated, many cities have plans that are 20 to 25 years old.

Although there have been no major revisions to the state's planning laws, there have been several amendments over the years. These changes have resulted in a complex and confusing set of laws that has created numerous obstacles for smart growth to occur in the state. For example:

• nothing requires comprehensive plans to be updated or used, although the plans are required;
• differing sets of planning rules apply depending upon the size of a community;
• zoning decisions are not required to be based on, or consistent with, a long-range plan or vision;
• zoning rules are administered inconsistently, creating confusion amongst staff, elected leaders, developers, and the public at large; and
• annexation laws are confusing and vague.

In 2000, a proposal was made to form a planning and land-use legislative study commission.⁽⁵⁾ The study commission was to be charged with evaluating the effectiveness of current state, regional, and local planning and land-use laws, and proposing innovative and cooperative planning and land-use approaches in order to effectively guide growth and development. The bill, however, was not approved.

Since then, no major planning reform proposals or smart growth legislation have been introduced in the state legislature, nor have there been any related initiatives or actions by Gov. Frank Keating. Nonetheless, there are numerous indications such proposals could benefit the state.

A 1997 American Farmland Trust study identifying those areas nationwide where prime agricultural land is most vulnerable to loss from development included all 77 counties in Oklahoma on the list.⁽⁶⁾ Currently the state has a right-to-farm law and differential tax assessment rates for agricultural land, but no state or local authorizing statutes to protect farmland through transfer of development rights, agricultural protection zoning or other methods.⁽⁷⁾

Development to date, however, does not appear to be threatening in any way the federal funds the agricultural industry in the state receives. Between 1996 and 2000, 70,000-plus farm operations received more than $1.7 billion in federal subsidies.

The majority of the subsidies went to larger landowners: just 6 percent of the farm operations in the state received 50 percent of the monies. Most of the payments were made as part of the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill that was actually aimed at weaning farmers off of federal subsidies. Since payments were made based on a farmer's previous history, landowners were paid whether they planted a crop or not.⁽⁸⁾

There also appears to be little change underway in order to provide alternative methods of transportation in the state. A report by the Surface Transportation Policy Project, Changing Direction: Federal Transportation Spending in the 1990s, ranked Oklahoma among 14 states in the country showing "a weak commitment" to expanding transportation choices.⁽⁹⁾ Between 1990 and 1999, for instance, the state spent less than $5 per capita of its federal funds to expand bicycle, pedestrian, and transit-oriented transportation options. The national average for the same period was $17.26 per capita.⁽¹⁰⁾

There also appears to be a need for more affordable housing, another important planning issue, in the state. Recent studies show 40 percent of renters in the state pay more than 30 percent of their total annual income in housing costs.⁽¹¹⁾

Planners point out that it is in the long-term interest of Oklahoma's cities, suburbs, small towns, and rural communities to be able to support healthy development patterns and direct growth in a way that minimizes damage to the environment, reduces "sprawl" in urban centers and scattered development in outlying areas, and improves the livability of towns and cities. Reforming the state's comprehensive planning authorizing statutes is the first step to be able to steer growth and development in that direction.

Footnotes

1. "Population Change and Distribution 1990 to 2000." Census 2000 Brief. U.S. Census Bureau, April 2001, p. 2.

2. Id. (9.7 percent increase).

3. Cobb, Rodney. "Toward Modern Statutes, A Survey of State Laws on Local Land-Use Planning." Growing Smart Working Papers Vol. 2, American Planning Association, 1998.

4. State Endangered Species Acts: Past, Present and Future. Defenders of Wildlife and Center for Wildlife Law. February 1998, p. 14.

5. S.B. 1151, sponsored by Sen. Mike Morgan (2000).

6. Sorensen, Ann, et al. Farming on the Edge. American Farmland Trust, 1997.

7. "Table 1.1: Farmland Activities By State." Saving American Farmland: What Works. American Farmland Trust, 1997.

8. "In Farm Subsidies, The Rich Get Richer." The Daily Oklahoman. Jan. 13, 2001, p. 1-A.

9. Changing Direction: Federal Transportation Spending in the 1990s. Surface Transportation Policy Project, March 2000, p. 7. See: http://www.transact.org/reports/cd/execsummary.htm

10. Id., p. 15.

11. "Out of Reach: America's Growing Wage-Rent Disparity." National Low Income Housing Coalition, September 2001, p. 279.