• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

cheeseheads?

Why as a matter of fact I've just returned from the statehouse. Very interesting today wouldn't you say?
 
what happened? since I'm listening on the web, I'm a few hours behind-- I'm probably only an hour into the hearings.
 
No...I can't ruin it for you. If you're only an hour in, you haven't even gotten close to the juicy stuff yet. Just stay tuned, and we can discuss it tomorrw.
 
For non-cheeseheads:

There was a committee hearing at the statehouse on a bill to repeal the 'smart growth' legislation.
 
Read about the proposed legislation here.

Question: Does the current statute mandate the content and policy direction of local comprehensive plans?

If not, WTF is the big deal? A community could adopt a comp plan that says pave everything, and then adopt the local statutes consistent with that. And - voila - you have met the letter and intent of the law.
 
SGB said:
Read about the proposed legislation here.

Question: Does the current statute mandate the content and policy direction of local comprehensive plans?...
Click to expand...

As I understand it, sort of. It does state what should be included in a comp plan but not necessarily how. More important is that it says future monies such as grants, and project money will not go to whatever local unit without them having a cohearent comp plan.

There are a number of future trash dumps....ooops, I mean counties that feel they should be able to shit all over themselves however they want under the cover of "property rights". Planners are vieled commy bastards out to socialize everything with zoning you know, after all, this is the state that spawned McCarthy.
 
All of my UW professors have been talking about this. I get the sense that the state rep who is sponsoring the legistlation is not taken very seriously. The governor is behind the law, too.

It's so silly since the law doesn't mandate anything except that communities need to have a plan by 2010. There is no requirement for what is in the plan. Just that a plan must be done. Sounds innocuous enough to me.
 
The Wisconsin State Journal even panned the idea, asking why something favored by developers, realtors, and environmentalists alike was a bad thing. On the other hand, I hear that the Wisconsin Downtown Act has a fair chance of getting to a vote. :)
 
Not Exactly

Greenescapist said:
All of my UW professors have been talking about this. I get the sense that the state rep who is sponsoring the legistlation is not taken very seriously. The governor is behind the law, too.

It's so silly since the law doesn't mandate anything except that communities need to have a plan by 2010. There is no requirement for what is in the plan. Just that a plan must be done. Sounds innocuous enough to me.
Click to expand...

The "Law"...and I use quotes because Smart Growth was a rider to the biennial budget...dictates that there be consistency amongst all plans a community relies upon...please read the following articles:

ARTICLE 1
ARTICLE 2

The "Law" mandates more than you may think, and the consistency determination is ulimately made by the Courts, not by the Planners. Smart Growth is all that it's cracked up to be...


WARNING !!! Thefollowing is the commentary of a lifelong resident of Wisconsin planner...

As an aside Greenscapist, please remember that you are in the liberal heart of the state, attending a liberal institution on par with UC-Berkley. You will tend to be informed of one viewpoint portrayed by academia, not by practitioners. Just because government says something is good doesn't mean it actually is.
 
Re: Not Exactly

prudence said:
The "Law"...and I use quotes because Smart Growth was a rider to the biennial budget...dictates that there be consistency amongst all plans a community relies upon...please read the following articles:

ARTICLE 1
ARTICLE 2

The "Law" mandates more than you may think, and the consistency determination is ulimately made by the Courts, not by the Planners.
Click to expand...

Cheeseheads: Can someone please post the full text of the Smart Growth rider?

All others: Read the articles Prudence provided links to above, and the full text of the Smart Growth bill once a link is available.
Prepare to discuss.
 
Sorry for diverging from the discussion!

Mike D. said:
Why as a matter of fact I've just returned from the statehouse. Very interesting today wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Well done!
 
Re: Not Exactly

prudence said:
WARNING !!! Thefollowing is the commentary of a lifelong resident of Wisconsin planner...

As an aside Greenscapist, please remember that you are in the liberal heart of the state, attending a liberal institution on par with UC-Berkley. You will tend to be informed of one viewpoint portrayed by academia, not by practitioners. Just because government says something is good doesn't mean it actually is.
Click to expand...

It is certainly true enough that Madison does not reflect the rest of the state, or often enough, all of Dane County. Still, support for Smart Growth is widespread among most communities. The only "anti" faction is within the rural towns. It is certainly supported by all of the cities and villages in my area, which is fifty miles outside Madison. It is also supported by about 50-60 cities I work with on downtown revitalization efforts. This bill is what happens when a few vocal town officials find a naive legislator to swallow their line without thinking.
 
I don't get it.

Ok, so I'm not a cheesehead planner. Never have been. Perhaps never will be. I don't even play one on television.

Could somebody please explain the problem with the consistancy requirement in the Smart Growth legislation?

Isn't the creation of municipal plans and promoting their implementation a large part of what our profession is all about?

From what I've read through the links provided above, this state law still doesn't mandate that the comprehensive plans take a certain policy viewpoint. What the heck is all the fuss about?
 
Re: Not Exactly

prudence said:
The "Law"...and I use quotes because Smart Growth was a rider to the biennial budget...dictates that there be consistency amongst all plans a community relies upon...please read the following articles:

ARTICLE 1
ARTICLE 2

The "Law" mandates more than you may think, and the consistency determination is ulimately made by the Courts, not by the Planners. Smart Growth is all that it's cracked up to be...


WARNING !!! Thefollowing is the commentary of a lifelong resident of Wisconsin planner...

As an aside Greenscapist, please remember that you are in the liberal heart of the state, attending a liberal institution on par with UC-Berkley. You will tend to be informed of one viewpoint portrayed by academia, not by practitioners. Just because government says something is good doesn't mean it actually is.
Click to expand...

Prudence - yes, I know I now live in a liberals' heaven. Some of the people here make me feel conservative, because.... gasp!..... I believe in markets. I'm also not naive enough to believe everything I hear, be it from an academic or practitioner.

I actually was talking to some Dane County planners about this issue. They have a very slim operation and few resources to get the whole comp plan done, but they seemed to still believe that it's important to do. And it makes sense to me that other regions of the state should be encouraged to plan as well.
 
Back
Top