Land Use And Sustainable Communities
Boom Times In Northwest Michigan

Recently, a local contractor told me how very well his company is doing. "We're totally booked through next spring. It's so busy, I'm turning work away every week. And I can't find anyone to recommend. Everybody's booked. It's really great, but I don't want to get too use to this. It can't go on like this. There's gotta be an end to it."

Implicit in his comments is one very real and obvious fact, the rapid fire construction of new buildings across the countryside cannot continue indefinitely. At some point, land will become too expensive, undesirable, and just plain ugly. This is not news. Community planners and land use experts have been shouting this message at the top of their lungs for many years now. The current trend of low-density urban development, what most people call urban sprawl, is simply unsustainable.

Actually, we all know this both intuitively and experientially. Poorly planned, uncoordinated, and consumptive development is progressing at an alarming rate. We see it scraping away the very things we find most enjoyable and meaningful in this region. In many ways, urban sprawl is a social disease that afflicts just about everyone in our region on a daily basis. The range of symptoms is impressive: traffic congestion and crumbling roads; big bills for new water and sewer systems, schools, churches, and emergency services; disappearing open space, scenery and scenic vistas; the loss of wildlife as well as areas for hunting and fishing; increasing transportation costs; and polluted air and water. Clearly, the patient is sick, but what kind of disease is this? How do we treat it?

Unfortunately, there is no single cause of urban sprawl. Like so many other social diseases, the causes are personal, political, and commercial. Everyone who participates in our regional economy contributes to the problem -- even if only in very small, personal ways. Our local governments and community leaders play a significant role in supporting this pattern of unsustain-able development as do state and federal politicians. Even our competitive, global economy can be clearly identified as a part of the unhealthy pattern of development.

Government Control and Other Myths
High amenity areas like northwest lower Michigan attract people and businesses. In fact, the natural beauty is a critical and well recognized part of our local economy. For many years, jobs were scarce and wages depressed in the Grand Traverse Region due, in part, to the oversupply of labor. We give up a part of our pay for "a view of the bay." People will give up a lot to live in a beautiful environment. Of course, that's only part of the story. People also change the environment. Los Angeles once had an undeniable natural beauty and charm that attracted people. Today, that city still attracts people, but for different reasons.

In the Grand Traverse Region, new comers are greeted by a thriving real estate industry, a booming construction trade, lots of low-pay service-sector jobs, and an increasing number of local politicians arguing with each other about how to handle all this growth. For some local government officials, there is an embarrassment of riches. New tax dollars are being generated at an astonishing rate as property values rise and new development leap-frogs out into the green fields. Other local officials are struggling to pay for new roads and the repair of old roads as traffic pours across their jurisdiction to destinations elsewhere. And that's just the beginning of the patchwork of development and change.

The number of public officials and governments involved in managing local land use choices is simply bewildering. Michigan is divided into a patchwork of overlapping political jurisdictions and competing governmental interests. Throughout Michigan, there are invisible lines drawn that separate 83 different counties, over 1,200 townships, and over 530 separate villages and cities. All of these governmental units can adopt ordinances controlling development and taxing both personal and real property.

In the 10 county region of northwest lower Michigan, there are at least 200 different local units of government exercising some control over the placement and design of homes and businesses. The jurisdictional boundaries of these villages, cities, townships, and counties have little to do with the boundaries of school districts, shopping service districts, ranges of employment, ecosystems, or watersheds. In fact, from a natural resource or land use planning perspective, these little boxes make no sense. These political boundaries are just that, inventions of politics.

Who are these local officials and how are they handling this rapid change in our landscape? Most people can't tell you. Asked where we live, most of us will offer a street address and a postal center. But many of us are unsure about the actual political jurisdiction in which we live. Are we in the township or the city? Or is it a village? We may know who the mayor is or the township supervisor, but we are hard pressed to name a single member of the planning commission or the zoning board of appeals. Actually, most of us don't know what these people do anyway.

Too Much Democracy?
So who actually controls urban development and land use change? The short answer is "we do," individually and collectively. As individuals, any one of us can choose to clear a field or forest and build a building, if we can find the money. And that's where devel-opment begins&emdash;a personal or professional choice. Of course, the context of the choice is critical. At some point, we must deal with our neighbors and the controls imposed by our democratic society. Collectively, we have formed federal, state, and local governments to protect and preserve us, to manage our shared resources, and to provide some basic services. The purchase and development of a parcel of land invokes all of these functions of government. In Michigan, the elected and appointed officials of local governments are the most active in representing the public's hopes and desires in guiding and managing land use change.

For example, when a home builder or developer requests a change in zoning, the people who own property within 300 feet of the subject parcel(s) must be notified, others may read it in public notices. The appointed members of the planning commission consider the proposal in relation to the master plan and zoning ordinance and offer a majority opinion to the elected board or council for a final vote. On the other hand, if a building or development is proposed that differs from the zoning requirements, a variance can be granted. These may get a simple approval by the zoning administrator (an employee of the local government) or may require a review by the appointed members of the zoning board of appeals. For unusual or unique developments, a special use permit can be granted by the planning commission and elected officials. To participate in these processes, citizens vote in elections, provide general opinions to public officials, attend meetings, and offer verbal or written comments on proposals for land use change. These processes are neatly divided, essentially rational, and -- in many ways -- painfully dysfunctional.

We are awash in incrementalism. Every land use decision by every local government is separate in time and space. There are no state or national requirements for comparing or coordinating master plans and zoning ordinances across jurisdic-tional boundaries. There are no regional or state programs to assure that adjacent land uses are compatible across government boundaries.

Things are not much better within our local units of government. A city or township may adopt a master plan and zoning ordinance with broad public input, but these legal documents are enforced one case at a time. Each variance, special use permit, or zoning change gets a separate review. As appointed and elected officials look for ways to accommodate the heartfelt desires of their friends and neighbors, they may make differing interpretations of the ordinance. Further, few planning commission members stay at it for more than a few years. Over time, thousands of small inconsis-tencies add up to big changes while leaving the master plan and zoning ordinance vulnerable to legal challenges.

The Problem of Leadership -- Feudalism With No King
So regional development proceeds incrementally, under the general guidance of a dozens of master plans and zoning ordinances, applied by a frequently changing series of elected and appointed officials, in small geographic areas, with little or no information about what is happening next door. Where do concerned citizens fit in? Although the process is public and open, few citizens willingly attend city and township meetings on a regular basis. We are busy. We don't understand the process. We don't think development affects us directly -- unless the new fast food place goes in next door. Often the most motivated and consistent participants -- citizens and officials alike -- are those most invested in current and future development: business owners, realtors, builders, and landlords. These community members may share your definition of a sustainable community. Then again, they may not.

Once appointed or elected, most people become invested in local processes and find little incentive to work with adjacent jurisdictions. In addition to a measure of power, the mantel of public office seems to confer a greater sense of parochialism and a myopic view of the natural world. While there are many notable exceptions, most local officials jealously guard their independent authority to plan and zone regardless of regional, state, or federal concerns. In the name of "local control," an uncoordinated mass of little governments continues to expose our state to the long-term costs of urban sprawl.

Our state leaders know this. In 1992, Governor John Engler released the Relative Risk Analysis Project Report stating that the lack of coordinated land use planning was one of the greatest risks to environmental quality remaining in the state. In 1995, the Michigan Society of Planning Officials released the Michigan Trend Future Report and its summary document, Patterns On The Land, Our Choices - Our Future. These reports clearly document the whole range of adverse impacts of incremental, uncoordinated land use decisions being made by 1,800 local units of government in Michigan. The need for change is clear enough. Our state leaders simply have little direct incentive to act. What state politician would suggest that their most powerful allies back home give up any amount of political control? Once in hand, control is hard to relinquish. Further, there has been no obvious public outcry for change. Landowners everywhere are conflicted. With land values rocketing upward all over northwest lower Michigan, it is much easier to consider development controls elsewhere.

Looking For A Change
Thinking about widespread and complex social issues such as urban sprawl can generate an overwhelming sense of despair. In this cycle of consumptive land use - the green field development and decay of urban centers - we might recognize the interplay of overwhelming greed, gross commercialism, and uninformed consumerism. On the other hand, we might choose to push for change. The people of Michigan are quite capable of changing courses and reversing trends. We can take a more proactive approach toward preserving cultural and natural resources and constructing sustainable communities.

There are many organizations active throughout our region that offer new ideas and assistance in countering the urban sprawl trend. For example, the New Designs For Growth effort organized by the Traverse City Chamber of Commerce calls for more creative and sensitive site planning, including more compact development and the preservation of important on-site natural resources. The Leelanau Conservancy and Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy are demonstrating new ways of preserving critical ecosystems through the purchase and transfer of development rights. Groups like the Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative, Conservation Resource Alliance, and Tipp of the Mitt Watershed Council provide education and technical assistance in protecting water quality and preserving natural resources throughout the region. The Land Information Access Association offers local and county governments public participation processes and computer-based systems to expand citizen access to land use planning and community development information. The Northwest Michigan Council of Governments provides counties technical assistance in evaluating the potential impacts of development on cultural and natural resources.

In each case, these organizations ask us to think outside of our small boxes, both personal and govern-mental. They call on us to recognize that our natural resources are interconnected and finite. Though we may splinter property ownership and political control into infini-tesimally small pieces, ecosystems cannot be divided without damage and loss. Water flows without regard to property lines and governmental boundaries. We need to manage our limited cultural and natural resources in much the same way. As individuals, we need to be more informed consumers, more responsible land owners, and more active community members. As citizens, we must insist that our local units of government reach beyond their borders to participate in intergovernmental land use planning designed to sustain our urban centers and control inefficient, sprawling, and destructive development.

Of course, all this concern over unsustainable development and urban sprawl is pointless if we fail to appreciate the natural beauty, history, and people of Northwest lower Michigan. So, perhaps, the most important first step in defining sustainable land use patterns is to slow our hectic lives a bit and simply love this place.

Joe VanderMeulen, Ph.D., is the Executive Director of Land Information Access Assoication, a 501(c)3 organization providing public officials and citizens with more effective access to information about the cultural and natural resources that compose Michigan's communities.

Return to the Index of Synapse 45, Fall 1998