July 1998

By James Lawlor

Tennessee: Legislative coup. An event Sam Edwards, AICP, chair of the chapter's state and local affairs committee, calls a "minor miracle" occurred in early May, when the legislature enacted a bill establishing a foundation for comprehensive growth management. The passage of SB 3278 owes a lot to serendipity, Edwards says, starting with last year's passage of an annexation bill that was ruled unconstitutional by the state supreme court. That led to the creation of an ad hoc committee to rewrite the annexation laws.

Working from a proposal submitted by the chapter, the committee produced a draft bill that included several growth management provisions. The bill initially was given no chance of passage because it affected so many interest groups. In the end, says Edwards, the chapter's persistence and good relationship with committee cochair Sen. Robert Rochelle paid off. So did the support of groups like the Tennessee Farm Bureau, the Sierra Club, the association of counties, and at the last minute, the Tennessee Municipal League. Together, these groups were able largely to overcome the determined resistance of the Tennessee Home Builders.

Prospects worsened at the end of the legislative session, Edwards reports, when the house passed a version of the bill that deleted all of the growth management provisions. But the senate stuck to its guns, and a 13-hour conference committee negotiating session resulted in a final version that retained most of the planning provisions.

The law, which incorporates language from some draft materials produced by APA's Growing Smart program, covers a lot of territory. In addition to provisions on annexation, tax policy, and cooperation between cities and counties, it requires cities to establish urban growth boundaries that are big enough to account for anticipated growth for the next 20 years. Cities must also identify areas where growth is likely to occur and where the municipality can most effectively provide services.

Counties must establish planned growth areas and designate areas reserved for rural/agricultural uses. Every county must prepare a growth plan by July 1, 2001. The law provides for a dispute resolution process to iron out the inevitable disagreements between cities and counties over growth management policy.

Arizona: Competing initiatives. November voters will face a difficult choice, says legislative committee chair Corey Cox, if a citizens' growth management initiative appears on the ballot. They will have to choose between this initiative, 12-I-98, which mandates urban growth boundaries, and HCR 2027, a proposal to finance land acquisition under the Growing Smarter Act (HB 2361), which was passed by the legislature in May. Cox says no one is sure what would happen if voters turn down HB 2027, which is the funding mechanism for the land acquisition portions of act.

The Growing Smarter Act brings significant changes in the state's planning process. The law requires municipalities to adopt new comprehensive plans every 10 years. The plans must identify mechanisms for ensuring that new development pays its share of increased public facility costs. In addition, the law allocates up to $200 million in state matching funds over the next 10 years to help purchase open space, primarily within urban areas. The law also creates a 15-member "Growing Smarter Commission," representing a variety of interest groups and the legislature, to, among other objectives, promote sensible development patterns.

Not everything the legislature did was as positive as Growing Smarter. Despite the chapter's strong opposition, it passed a law (HB 2621) that bars counties from downzoning property without the owner's consent. Although the law applies to counties generally, officials in Pima and Cochise counties believe it was aimed specifically at them. The board of supervisors of Pima County (which includes Tucson) voted unanimously in May to sue the state in an effort to block the law. The state's association of counties voted not to oppose the bill, Cox notes, which is one likely reason it passed.