|
The reasons are many and even part of state law, among them-efficiency, safety, health, appropriate and best land uses.
By Jim vonTungeln, Staff Planning Consultant, American Institute of Certified Planners
It is good from time to time to ask: why do we plan? Moreover, of what benefit to the local populace is this messy business of zoning, code enforcement and development regulation? Considering the controversy produced, is planning for the future worth it? As James Joyce would put it-yes, yes, yes it is, yes. As with many aspects of a democracy, the planning process is more often observed in the heat of its imperfections than in the warmth of its benefits. Rather than dwelling on its imperfections, perhaps we should, instead, work on ways to improve them-more on this during the coming year. In the meantime, why bother? I think our enabling legislation provides the best of reasons. For example, ยง 14-56-403 of the annotated code offers a summary of the purposes of planning, to wit: The plans of the municipality shall be prepared in order to promote, in accordance with present and future needs, the safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the citizens. The plans may provide, among other things, for: 1) Efficiency and economy in the process of development; 2) The appropriate and best use of land; 3) Convenience of traffic and circulation of people and goods; 4) Safety from fire and other dangers; 5) Adequate light and air in the use and occupancy of buildings; 6) Healthful and convenient distribution of population; 7) Good civic design and arrangement; 8) Adequate public utilities and facilities; and 9) Wise and efficient expenditure of funds. Although the list is not exclusive, it does provide a clear and defensible basis for a city government seeking to operate efficiently. Going even further back to the basics, we find the "great-grandmother" of all zoning cases-the 1926 U.S. Supreme Court decision in The Village of Euclid, Ohio vs. the Ambler Realty Company. It established that zoning in American cities was a reasonable exercise of police power. In reaching its conclusion, the court echoed some of the benefits contained in the list above. Crossing philosophical boundaries, it then paid homage to fiscal responsibility. The decision referenced a Louisiana case that pointed out: "... the zoning of a city into residence districts and commercial districts is a matter of economy in street paving. Heavy trucks, hauling freight to and from places of business in residence districts, require the city to maintain the same costly pavement in such districts that is required for business districts; whereas, in the residence districts where business establishments are excluded, a cheaper pavement serves the purpose." In other words, planning saves money. The Euclid decision also reminds us of the relationship between the plan and zoning regulations. It cites an Illinois case which pointed out that "... the exclusion of places of business from residential districts is not a declaration that such places are nuisances or that they are to be suppressed as such, but it is a part of the general plan by which the city's territory is allotted to different uses, in order to prevent, or at least to reduce, the congestion, disorder, and dangers which often inhere in unregulated municipal development." We plan and then we regulate. Does following these foundations of planning place us on solid ground? Not always-we must balance them against both the demands of the market and the strong feelings for individual property rights in this country. But in seeking that balance, we continually ask ourselves the following question: which part of protecting the "present and future needs, the safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the citizens" shall we discard in order to allow unrestricted use of any tract of land, anywhere, anytime? Once more, let us look to the Euclid court decision. Its support of order in municipal development still rings through the years with its most oft-quoted passage. "The constantly increasing density of our urban populations, the multiplying forms of industry and the growing complexity of our civilization make it necessary for the state, either directly or through some public agency, by its sanction, to limit individual activities to a greater extent than formerly. With the growth and development of the state the police power necessarily develops, within reasonable bounds, to meet the changing conditions ..." That was true in 1926; it is true in 2005. For questions or comments, see our Web site at www.planyourcity.com. Jim vonTungeln is available for counsel to League member cities. He can be reached also at 501-372-3232.
Arkansas League officials attend Congress of Cities in Indianapolis
Municipal League Executive Committee finishes year with lengthy agenda
Why we plan
Want to be a winner?
|
