Chapter 1

In the late 1990s, some people are driving 50 miles or more to their jobs and sitting in traffic for hours each day. Like generals before battle, they plan their activities strategically before leaving home. When they do pull out of their driveways, many people see a transformed landscape, one that does not look like the place where they settled just a few years ago. Farms are becoming housing sub-divisions or shopping centers, small towns are becoming suburbs, suburbs are becoming satellite cities, two-lane roads are becoming four-lane highways. The phenomenon has become known by a single word: sprawl.

TENNESSEE: Some Facts to Consider

Tennessee is among the top 10 states in conversion of farmland to development. Between 1982 and 1992, 436,000 acres were developed—approximately 4% of the state’s total farmland. Of the land converted during this period, more than one-third was prime or unique farmland. (Source: American Farmland Trust; 1992 Census of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture)
In 1992, the average farm operator in Tennessee was 55 years old. Forty percent of all Tennessee farm operators were full-time farmers. (Source: 1992 Census of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture)
Between 1990 and 1997, Tennessee’s population grew from 4.9 million to 5.4 million—an increase of more than 10%. In contrast, the total U.S. population grew less than 8% over the same period. (Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census)
The U.S. population increased 30% between 1970 and 1996, to 265.3 million. The number of vehicle miles driven annually increased 123%, to 2.5 billion. (Source: USA Today, 1/16/98)
In some cases around the U.S., it costs government approximately $20,000 more to provide infrastructure and municipal services for low-density "sprawl" development than for compact "infill" development. (Source: James C. Nicholas, Arthur C. Nelson, and Julian C. Juergensmeyer. 1991. A Practitioner’s Guide to Development Impact Fees. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, p. 1)

Smart growth is about finding ways to manage sprawl and improve our total quality of life. But smart growth is not just about sprawl. It is also about:

Smart growth, then, is not about curtailing all growth. Instead, it is about each community’s planning wisely for its future.

There are now many local, state, and national smart growth initiatives. For example, a national Smart Growth Network has been established recently, and Tennessee has its own Smart Growth Coalition. (See Chapter 7 for information on these two organizations.) Vice President Al Gore, in a September 21, 1998 speech, announced new federal smart growth initiatives to increase farmland preservation, provide support for location-efficient mortgages (LEMs) through "Fannie Mae," and make available small grants for community geographic information systems. (For the full text of Vice President Gore’s speech, visit the Smart Growth Network’s Internet site at http://www.smartgrowth.org) These initiatives have been expanded in President Bill Clinton’s recently announced "Livability Agenda," which is part of the fiscal year 2000 budget to be sent to Congress in early 1999. In Tennessee, the state has taken the bold step of enacting legislation that will lead to the designation of urban growth boundaries, planned growth areas, and rural areas in the state’s counties. (See the accompanying box for a summary of this bill.)

In June 1993, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development was created. As its charge, it was directed to "bring people together to meet the needs of the present without jeopardizing the future" (Sustainable America: A New Consensus, February 1996, p. 2). The council has gone on to identify the three legs of the stool that support sustainability:

Embedded in these three "legs" is the idea that in the long run we cannot have economic prosperity without protecting our natural resources, and that distributional fairness requires that the well-being of all people be taken into account.

Considering both present and future needs is at the core of both "sustainable development" and "sustainability." The main difference between the two concepts is their philosophical tilt: Whereas sustainable development suggests that development is inevitable and the question is how (not whether) it will occur, sustainability suggests that economic development is a means to an end, not an end in itself, and may not always be the most prudent course. Philosophically, smart growth aligns more closely with sustainable development, but in fact, all three may play out in much the same way.

All three suggest both a renewed emphasis on comprehensive planning and a departure from the way it historically was carried out. Formerly, planning tended to emphasize an output—a plan—that depicted proposed land uses and related infrastructure. While that is still a main purpose of a plan, today comprehensive planning is driven by its focus on input from affected people and on real outcomes (not just paper outputs). To the extent that those outcomes are cast in terms of the needs of both present and future people along the three aforementioned dimensions—economic, environmental, and social well-being—comprehensive planning becomes congruent with planning for sustainability, sustainable development, or smart growth.

In a word, no. There are many means to guide growth and promote sustainability. Some of them involve various controls over private construction and land use: for example, through building codes, design criteria, sign regulations, pollution regulations, and so forth as well as zoning. Other techniques involve decisions about public infrastructure: for example, where roads will be developed or improved, where utilities will be located, where curb cuts will be allowed, etc. Still others involve decisions about investments in public parks and buildings such as schools, libraries, and courthouses. These decisions, together with decisions about management of public land and facilities, are important both for the services they provide and for their effect on the uses of surrounding, privately held land. Finally, decisions about sources of tax revenue, including the possibility of development impact fees, can contribute to guiding how growth occurs.

Participatory visioning and planning for smart growth is not just a nice, community-building exercise; it is becoming essential. Legislation such as that enacted in Tennessee brings home the importance of planning for smart growth; so does legislation at the national scale, such as "TEA-21." But the past few decades have taught us that planning without community involvement is likely to lead to plans that sit on the shelf. Open processes such as those described in this guide are no "magic bullet," but they improve the chances that the resulting plans will be consulted in making future decisions.

A visioning and planning process can help a community work together to proactively respond to legislative initiatives and other forces for change, by charting its course to the future. As when a boat is under sail, taking your bearings is the first step; knowing where you want to get to is the second; adjusting your sails and your rudder is the third. The winds won’t always blow with the same force or from the same direction, and you may have to tack or alter your destination. The visioning and planning process shouldn’t put you on auto-pilot. It should, however, help you to proceed forward, better-equipped to move sustainably into a future over which you, the community, has some control.

Summary of Growth Policy Mandate of TN Public Chapter 1101

(passed 5/1/98 by the House and Senate as Senate Bill 3278
and approved 5/19/98 by Governor Sundquist):

Under a growth policy law enacted in May 1998, Tennessee counties and municipalities are required to develop joint plans for urban growth. This requirement applies to all counties except those with a metropolitan form of government.

The plans must specify three types of areas:

Urban growth areas for each municipality within the county

The urban growth areas of a municipality must be contiguous to existing municipal boundaries and must encompass the likely sites of high-density residential or non-residential growth over the next 20 years; be reasonably compact yet sufficiently large to accommodate that growth; and reflect the municipality’s duty to facilitate development of its resources while controlling urban expansion and taking into account impacts to agricultural lands, forests, recreational areas, and wildlife management areas.

Planned growth areas within each county

Planned growth areas of a county must not fall within the existing or urban growth boundaries of a municipality and must include the likely sites of high or moderate residential or non-residential growth within the county over the next 20 years; be reasonable compact yet sufficiently large to accommodate that growth; and take into account impacts to agricultural lands, forests, recreational areas, and wildlife management areas.

Rural areas within each county
Rural areas shall include territory that is not within urban growth or planned growth areas and is to be preserved as agricultural lands, forests, recreational areas, wildlife management areas, or for uses other than high-density commercial, industrial, or residential development.

Each county’s plan is to be developed by a county/municipality coordinating committee, which is to be appointed by September 1, 1998. Except for special instances specified in the law, the committee is to be composed of:
--- the county executive or his/her designee, to be confirmed by the county legislative body;
--- the mayor of each municipality or his/her designee, to be confirmed by the municipal governing body;
--- one member appointed by the board of the largest municipally-owned utility system in the county;
--- one member appointed by the board of the largest non-municipally-owned utility system in the county;
--- one member appointed by the board of the county soil conservation district;
--- one member appointed by the board of the largest local education agency;
--- two members appointed by the county executive and two members appointed by the mayor of the largest municipality, to assure broad representation of environmental, construction, and homeowner interests.

The coordinating committee is to develop a recommended growth plan by January 1, 2000, with at least two prior public hearings. The growth plan must include, at a minimum, documents describing municipal corporate limits as well as urban growth boundaries; planned growth areas, if any; and rural areas, if any.

The purpose of the growth plan is to direct coordinated, efficient, and orderly development in order to best promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, based on an analysis of present and future needs. A growth plan may address land-use, transportation, public infrastructure, housing, and economic development. The goals and objectives of a growth plan include the need to provide a unified design for development and to encourage a pattern of compact, contiguous high-density development; to establish an acceptable and consistent level of public services and facilities; to promote the adequate provision of employment opportunities and varied, affordable housing choices; to conserve features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, or archeological interest; to protect life and property from the effects of natural hazards; and to take into consideration other matters related to coordinated, efficient, and orderly local development.

When the coordinating committee has recommended a growth plan, it must be ratified or rejected by the county and municipal governing bodies within 120 days. Failure to act on the plan within 120 days shall be deemed to constitute ratification. If the county or any municipality rejects the recommended growth plan, the coordinating committee may submit a revised plan for approval. If the county or any municipality declares that an impasse is reached, it may request that the Secretary of State appoint a dispute resolution panel consisting of three administrative law judges trained in dispute resolution and mediation. The panel shall attempt to mediate unresolved disputes, and, if mediation fails, shall propose a non-binding resolution. If the local governments still cannot agree on a plan, the panel shall adopt a growth plan to resolve the impasse.

Plans must be submitted to and approved by the state’s local government planning advisory committee no later than July 1, 2001. If the local government planning advisory committee determines that the urban growth boundaries, planned growth areas, and/or rural areas do not conform with the provisions of the act, then the committee shall adopt and grant its approval of an alternative plan revised solely to achieve conformance. Failure to comply with this planning mandate affects the ability of county and municipal governments to receive various state and federal grants, as well as annexation and municipal incorporation powers.

-- Summary prepared by Mary English, Energy, Environment, and Resources Center, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

For more detail on the law and its implementation, see Growth Policy, Annexation, and Incorporation Under Public Chapter 1101 of 1998: A Guide for Community Leaders, a joint publication of the University of Tennessee Institute for Public Service and the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, September 1998. (http://www.ips.utk.edu/growthpolicy)