Do Wisconsin�s "Smart Growth" Plans Conform to Smart Growth Principles?

Are Wisconsin�s communities producing comprehensive plans that conform to smart growth principles? The short answer is "No, they are not." This article sets out to discuss the results of an evaluation of 30 grant-funded comprehensive plans. Since its adoption, Wisconsin�s comprehensive planning law, or "Smart Growth" law, has come under attack. Much of the attack stems from the perception that local comprehensive plans must conform to smart growth principles. (Figure 1 reproduces 14 state planning goals that communities must address if they have applied for and received state planning grant funds). To many people, the smart growth movement, from which 10

To evaluate these plans, we collected all thirty plans in their entirety, developed a plan evaluation protocol and used content analysis to evaluate each of the plans for use of smart growth (SG) principles. We derived a score card based on the 10 SG principles. We created one additional scoring criterion that focused on encouraging intergovernmental cooperation, since this Wisconsin goal was not included in any of the national SG principles and is an important aspect of the law. In evaluating each of the plans we initially noted the presence or absence of smart growth goals. Figure 3 illustrates the results of this content analysis. Results are decidedly mixed, with some plans including a comprehensive set of goals, others including only vague or narrowly-focused goals, and others failing to address specific goals at all.

In addition, we developed and evaluated a set of policies for each SG goal. Most policies were taken from "Getting to Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation" (SG Network, 2002). Under the "encouraging community and stakeholder collaboration" goal, we added another of Wisconsin�s goals: "balancing individual property rights with community interests and goals." We evaluated each policy as being action-oriented and specific (linked to specific conditions) versus general (vague) and non action-oriented. An example of an action-oriented policy might state, "adopt amendments to the subdivision and zoning ordinances to require or encourage conservation subdivision design." In contrast, a general policy might state, "encourage creative subdivision design." We evaluated action-oriented language as generally including words such as adopt, develop, and will versus encourage, promote and should.

We scored each policy within a goal and summed them (each policy received a score of 0 if it was not present, 1 if it was present but not action-oriented, and 2 if it was present and action-oriented). We standardized the scores by dividing the sum of the policy scores by the maximum possible score and then multiplying by ten. The total score reflects the sum of standardized scores for each SG goal.

Figure 4 shows the average smart growth score for each type of jurisdiction (city, village, and town). The range of scores is striking. Cities and villages have a higher average score than towns. The average city score is 24.77 while the average town score is 15.60. The scores range from a low of 3.35 total points to a high of 47.73 out of 110 points possible. Despite the significant difference between towns and cities/villages, by and large these plans have very low overall scores in terms of smart growth principles.

Discussion

If these plans were fully implemented, would we conclude the communities were not "smart growth" communities? Does it mean that low-scoring communities are not planning or growing smartly? Are the communities producing bad or ineffective plans or are they addressing their own needs which may not fall under what we accept as smart growth? If smart growth is about expanding the range of transportation, employment and housing choice and promoting more compact and efficient mixed use development patterns � do small towns need to abide by these principles to create effective plans?

This study demonstrates that this group of plans completed and adopted by communities under the comprehensive planning or "smart growth" law fails to incorporate many SG goals. Furthermore, when these goals were incorporated, they were often narrowly focused on one area of the community or one group within the community. In addition, in those communities where goals and accompanying policies were present, the policy statements were often passive rather than action-oriented. The likelihood that the goal would be achieved given the passive nature of the policy statements is questionable.

One of the interesting and telling findings of this study is the significant difference in smart growth scores of cities and villages versus towns. The average town score is significantly lower than the average city/village score for a number of smart growth goals. Goals such as creating walkable communities, promoting efficient development patterns, and providing transportation choices are generally not goals that are embraced by rural towns. These communities are not focused on creating density or walkability. Rather, these places want to retain their rural character, which is characterized by small populations, low density, and a feeling of spaciousness.

Although these smaller communities are not incorporating many smart growth principles or policies into their plans, it does not automatically mean they will grow "dumbly" in the future. On the contrary, it suggests at least two things. One, it may suggest that communities are creating unique local plans under the comprehensive planning law that are relevant and appropriate to that particular community. Two, it may suggest that our commonly accepted SG principles are better suited for larger cities and metropolitan areas rather than the many small sized communities that were part of this study. It implies that for small communities, especially rural communities, that a different set of principles is necessary if we want to see rural areas grow and change in a "smart" way.

Smart growth is not necessarily meant to be a blanket strategy for land use, but this study suggests that it should encompass an even broader range of tools that can be applied to varying community needs. It may be that it is difficult for small and rural communities to embrace and incorporate smart growth policies into local planning efforts if they cannot envision the possibility of large-scale development and scores of new people coming to town. The key challenge for many rural communities concerns stabilizing and revitalizing forest and agriculturally-based economies. For example, strategies or policies that match farmers with end users, or educational programs focused on alternative farming methods that promote sustainable agriculture would make more sense as economic development policies as opposed to a policy suggesting more infill development. Specific policies that complement and support community efforts to retain rural character, to promote unique rural economies, to cooperate with neighboring governments, and to maintain a distinct and ecologically healthy way of life should be part of a suggested set of smart growth goals and policies that is meant to appeal to all types of communities. When smart growth is promoted, it is most often described in terms of encouraging communities to promote compact, mixed use, pedestrian friendly and ecologically sound development directed to existing built areas.

This study suggests that more work is necessary to develop a set of sample principles and policies to assist small and rural communities. More importantly for Wisconsin, it suggests that communities are creating comprehensive plans that address their local concerns and needs.