October 1999

By James Lawlor

New York: Smart growth surprise. Earlier this year, smart growth legislation seemed to be moribund in the state, at least for the current legislative session. In July, the assembly, the lower house, decided to take no action on three smart growth bills when no senate sponsor was forthcoming. A senate bill that would have established a smart growth planning council also seem to be going nowhere.

Then, lo and behold, the legislature inserted $800,000 in its next fiscal year budget to fund three smart growth demonstration projects. As of early September, said Upstate Chapter legislative chair Steven Finn, the projects' parameters had not been established. It seems likely, however, that the they will be distributed geographically, with one going to the downstate region, one for to the middle part of the state, and one to western New York.

Mississippi: Enabling act update. A two-year effort to update the state's planning enabling act is close to bearing fruit, chapter legislative chair Robert Barber, AICP, reports. The chapter legislative committee charged with preparing a new version of the law presented its first draft at the chapter's summer conference and hopes to gain approval of a final draft at the fall conference this month. Assuming that the chapter approves the draft, the committee's next step will be to secure legislative sponsors.

Barber notes that the original planning statute dates from the 1940s, although the law was revised in 1989, incorporating changes suggested by the chapter. The aim of the current proposals is to clarify the relationship between the comprehensive plan and the tools, such as zoning ordinances, used to implement it. The chapter also wants the law to state clearly that municipalities have the authority to use modern planning tools, like impact fees.

South Carolina: New impact fee law. The first half of the legislature's 1999-2000 session saw the enactment of the state's first comprehensive law authorizing impact fees (H. 3641), reports chapter legislative chair Sharon Richardson.

Act 118 was pushed by home builders and real estate interests eager for a stronger framework for the imposition of fees. The chapter took no official position on the bill but did offer technical suggestions. The result, says Richardson, is a relatively planner-friendly measure.

The new legislation requires that impact fees be clearly tied to the infrastructure costs related to new development, but it also gives municipalities latitude in imposing fees for a variety of impacts, Richardson says. The chapter is planning a December workshop to train local officials on the requirements of the new law and drafting of impact fee provisions.

The chapter's legislative committee has also drafted a smart growth proposal bill to serve as a basis of discussion with the staff of Sen. Phil Leventis, who has expressed interest in a smart growth measure, Richardson reports. The draft bill calls for establishing a state-level commission to advise the legislature on growth and resource development issues and to develop goals and objectives for managing the state's resources.

The growth commission also would establish intergovernmental agreements with all state departments that issue permits affecting land use, with the objective of ensuring consistency between state actions and local comprehensive.

California: Update on Top 10. Chapter legislative representative Sande George says the Top 10 legislation list has gone on a diet, but it is still pretty lengthy.

One bill, backed by the chapter, that has passed both houses and is awaiting enrollment at this writing might be of interest to other states. A.B. 178 would prohibit counties, municipalities, or redevelopment agencies from providing financial assistance to a big-box retailer relocating from another community within the same market area—unless the receiving community agreed to share its new sales tax revenue with the losing community.