|
Both technologies eliminate travel time and expenses and allow
<br />for widespread delivery of information. Compressed video
<br />technology, for example, provides live action sight and sound
<br />reproduction at different physical locations via a satellite feed.
<br />This allows the training of several groups at different sites
<br />simultaneously, a technique that is particularly useful in western
<br />states with widespread populations. California, Michigan, and
<br />Wyoming have experimented with this format, and it is gaining
<br />popularity.
<br /> The Internet has become a powerful forum for sharing
<br />current information. Wayne Senville, editor of the Planning
<br />Commissioners Journal and host of the "PlannersWeb' site at
<br />www.plannersweb.com, is using the Internet to disseminate
<br />information that is useful to citizen officials, elected officials,
<br />and planners alike. Still, Senvi{le feels this medium has not
<br />reached its full potential, but believes it will eventually be a
<br />great training tool.
<br /> CPTC in Massachusetts is also going online by designing a
<br />website. The group is developing a resource center that will
<br />offer a variety of resources, including many of the training
<br />modules used in its workshops. Robert Mitchell says when
<br />CPTC discussed the best way to host a clearinghouse for its
<br />training information, the Internet became the obvious choice
<br />because it allows universal access and reaches an unlimited
<br />audience.
<br />
<br />Conclusion
<br />Debate continues on the most effective way to educ,~te citizen
<br />officials. Methodology aside, everyone agrees that training is
<br />key to successful planning. Although face-to-face workshops are
<br />likely to continue, technology may reduce this need in the
<br />future. Whatever the trend, civic-minded officials will
<br />undoubtedly have available to them a virtual world of teaching
<br />resources.
<br />
<br />Managing
<br />Maryland's Growth
<br />
<br />Growth management is frequently an issue for counties that are
<br />hosts to major business hubs or large cities. Because rapid
<br />growth may increase the probability for long-term economic
<br />survival, devising a method to slow the pace of development
<br />while maintaining a healthy tax base is the paradox facing
<br />administrative officials in these areas.
<br />
<br />Zoning News is a monthly newsletter published by Ibc American Planning Azsociarion.
<br />Subscriptions aec available for $50 (U,S.) and $65 (foreign). Frank S. So, Executive Director;
<br />William R. Kleln, Director of Research.
<br />Zoning News is produced at APA. Jim Schwab and Mike Davidson, Editors; Chris Burke. Fay
<br />Dolnick. Gina Jackson, 5anjay Jeer, Mcgan Lewis, Marya Morris, Becki Revdaff, Martin Roupe,
<br />Jason Wiuenbcrg, Reporlcrs; Cynthia Cheski, A.~sisrant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and
<br />Production,
<br />Copyright ©1998 by American Planning A~sociadon, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600.
<br />Chicago, IL 60603. The American Planning A~sociafion has headquarters offices at 1776
<br />Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036.
<br />All righr~ reserved. No part of thls publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by
<br />an). mean~, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information
<br />~loragc and retrieval s.vstem, without permi~fion in willing from the American Planning
<br />Association.
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled ilbct
<br />
<br /> Three neighboring counties in Maryland are experiencing such
<br />growth and have thus passed or revisited legislation to control
<br />development and still provide adequate public facilities.
<br />Montgomery, Prince George's, and Charles Counties have recently
<br />adopted legislative changes to maintain infrastructure such as par'ks,
<br />roads, god sewers. Similar changes have also been made to regulate
<br />the growth in the counties' crowded public schools.
<br /> · Despite the need for growth management, choosing between
<br />limited development or tax increases to pay for infrastructure
<br />irfiprovements is both difficult and unpopular with county
<br />officials and residents. How do jurisdictions maintain
<br />progressive economies and keep taxes at a reasonable level and
<br />improve infrastructure?
<br /> Overcrowded schools were the catalyst that summoned
<br />Montgomery and Charles counties to action. Their objectives
<br />were to allow residential development but still provide
<br />overcrowding relief for infrastructure and the school system.
<br />Growth policies adopted by the counties in the 1970s
<br />regulated development and assessed builders for road
<br />improvements required by the adequate public facilities
<br />ordinance (APFO).
<br /> In October 1997, policy governing growth management took a
<br />turn in both counties. Montgomery County adopted a bill to allow
<br />new development in parts of the county that the APFO had
<br />previously closed to developers. The new bill does not require
<br />developers to meet the standards of the county's previous Al)FO.
<br />However, they will have to pay a fee for the right to develop a
<br />project. The fees are based on both the type of development and
<br />whether the project is in a moratorium area. County officials hope
<br />this system, informally deemed "Pay and Go," will promote the
<br />residential, office, and retail development that provides fiscal
<br />support for schools and infrastructure.
<br /> In November 1997, commissioners in Charles County decided
<br />to abandon the growth cap that was designed to protect schools
<br />from overcrowding and implement a flexible system that would
<br />annually assess the need and location of new development.
<br />Revenues generated by subsequent development fee increases
<br />would be allocated toward additional classroom space.
<br /> While Montgomery and Charles counties enacted legislat!on to
<br />change stringent growth policies of the past, Prince George's
<br />County passed its first such policy: a four-year moratorium on new
<br />development. Again, overcrowded schools were the driving force
<br />for the enactment. The moratorium will affect communities where
<br />school overcrowding exceeds capacity by 30 percent.
<br /> Public schools are at or over capacity in all three counties,
<br />but the problem is most severe in Prince George's County. A
<br />1997 county report, Regulation to Analyze the Development
<br />Impact on Public School Facilities, showed that communities
<br />move in cyclical patterns. For example, empty-nester towns that
<br />were once home to young families cannot supply the volume of
<br />students required to fill the public schools when these families
<br />leave the community. As a result, classrooms sit vacant and
<br />infrastructure is underutilized. The study prompted Prince
<br />George's county officials to consider a way to regulate school
<br />overcrowding without building facilities that could be forced to
<br />close in the future.
<br /> The Maryland cases illustrate the risks of high-growth areas.
<br />Nevertheless, each counw found a way to manage the issue. "Pay
<br />and Go" legislation, periodic needs assessments, and development
<br />moratoria may be the solutions to growth management problems
<br />that have plagued the area for a long time. Christopher Burke
<br />
<br />
<br />
|