.. ... u~-5—..._79-A<(-~-...‘-v.-

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c:/CTfiC/oateom.m-ms

 

 

 

LAND USE Issues IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

NAOMI A. LARSON

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I 3 INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER ONE
“Issues Identified In Recent Expert Surveys Within Michigan"

Michigan’s Environmental and Relative Risk Report
Michigan Economic and Environmental Roundtable
The Americana Foundation

Saginaw Bay National Watershed Initiative: Zoning and
Land Use Survey

CHAPTER TWO
“Issues Identified In Citizen Surveys and Studies Within Michigan”

,1!
i b

MSU Extension’s Focus on Michigan’s Future

Michigan Public Opinion Survey

Grand Valley Metropolitan Region’s Metropolitan

Development Blueprint

SEMCOG's RDI

Ottawa County Development Plan: Visions and Goals Process
A Survey of Grand Traverse County Residents

Survey of Residents Concerning Issues Relating to Long-Range
Planning in Leelanau County

Public’s Perceptions of Environmental Problems in Kent County
Frankenmuth Opinion Survey

CHAPTER THREE
“Breadth of Issues Identified in State Planning Publications”

CHAPTER FOUR
‘Policy Reports”

A Study of Michigan: A Progress Report on an Inventory of Its
Resources, Its Physical, Social and Economic Character to Serve
as the Basis for Permanent, Adjustable State Planning, 1935
The Land Nobody Wanted, 1945

Michigan’s Major Agricultural Problems With Suggested
Solutions, 1946

Urban Growth And Problems. 1960’s

Michigan’s Future Was Today, 1974

Governor Milliken’s Special Commission on Land Use, 1970’s
From Crisis to Opportunity...Rebuilding Michigan's
Infrastructure, 1985

Water Resources for the Future, Michigan’s Action Plan. 1987

. Report of the House Republican Land Use Task Force, 1994

House Republican Task Force Report on Urban Strategy
and Community Development, 1994

i “D CHAPTER FIVE
'Synthesis of Land Use Issues and Conclusions”

17
18
25

31

41

43

43

45
45

‘ .
. 4 ‘ "-
. .
. ‘.
,
‘N:
l A ‘ -
l
l 1 .
A .
. I '
.
.
i i I
' .
‘ .
‘I I . I 7‘ l:
.
r I“. I
\ -‘ I L
I
‘ ."
. .
a)
I
.
.
l I.
’ K.
‘
.
. ‘ h
. ‘ A f
\
.
I
O ' ' ‘ fi
,.
.
.
I
. .
A ,
Y
I . T
. .
l .
.
' ..
,.
,
. .
.
I
. .
|

., fit 'a‘

i"!

INTRODUCTION

Land-and how it is used-is the major impetus for the study and practice of urban and
regional planning. Issues that arise involving the use of the land vary from region to
region and change with the landscape and culture. For example, in Florida, growth
management is the currently leading interest. In Iowa, the focus is on farmland
preservation and rural planning. Michigan, which is the focus of this paper, has many
unique land use issues, due to declining industrial Cities; hundreds of miles of coastal
land that are privately owned; sprawling suburbs; natural resources and sensitive
environments; and weak planning legislation.

The following chapters will identify the land use issues about which the people of
Michigan have expressed concern. Opinions from experts, citizens, various Michigan
planning publications, and policymakers will be presented. Some issues are particular
to a certain area of the state or to a certain point in time, while others transcend time
and are repeated by Citizens and policy makers alike. While some issues are
mentioned often, the reader will find that four major land use issues are identified
repeatedly: the costs of sprawl; the protection of natural resources; lack of integrated
and coordinated planning; and solid waste disposal.

Organization of Paper

Land use is a very broad topic, encompassing many subtopics. Concerns expressed
about the environment have been included due to the indivisible relationship between
the land and the environment. (If the land is used as a large factory site, there will most
likely be air and/or water pollution.) In the interest of creating a concise, readable
paper, issues such as urban infrastructure and economic development, though related
and important to land use, have not been systematically included.

The paper is organized into six Chapters. The first Chapter looks at issues identified in
expert reports and surveys around the state. The authors or survey subjects of these

reports and surveys are professional planners, planning commissioners, government
personnel, environmentalists, and scientists. Following this chapter, citizen opinion
surveys and related studies with broad public input on a state, region, county, and local
level serve as another facet to gather information about land use issues. The third
chapter demonstrates the breadth of land use issues as seen through various planning
publications distributed statewide to those interested in community planning. The
fourth chapter focuses on land use issues identified in key state governmental policy
studies, and how they relate to those issues identified previously by citizens and
experts. The fifth chapter discusses how these issues have changed over time and the
significance of any change.

The studies and surveys cited in this working paper are not meant to be an exhaustive
collection of all of the materials published in the topic area. Rather, they are
representative of the types of resources available—studies, expert surveys, citizen
surveys, and policy reports-at different levels of jurisdiction—state, regional, county
and local. Extra steps were taken to obtain some reports, while others were used
primarily because they were conveniently located in a nearby library and fit comfortably
into one of the above categories. Additional reports could be studied (along with many
additional hours spent); but the results would probably be the same. Wrth the relatively
small sample of reports used in this working paper, the same issues were identified
over and over. It seems clear that additional research would simply yield repetition. In
vwiting this paper, many reports, studies, and surveys have been used as major
sources or reference materials. Some information has been directly quoted and even
more has been paraphrased. For additional insights and direct quotes, readers are
encouraged to review the original source material.

PS
bi

is

CHAPTER ONE
ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN RECENT EXPERT SURVEYS WITHIN MICHIGAN

The following section explores the issues that were identified in four recent surveys
done by experts. Three of the surveys are state-wide-the participants identified
problems that occur throughout the entire state of Michigan. The fourth and last survey
discussed in this section is a regional survey. The Relative Risk report, though not
chronologically first, is the first report presented in this paper because of its
importance. The report’s results surprised people. The “usual” land use and
environmental problems such as air and water pollution, and the loss of natural
resources were not identified as the most pressing land use and environmental
problems. Instead, a political or beauracratic problem was identified: the lack of
integrated land use planning. Though its conclusions will be repeated in surveys and
reports in this section and in following sections, this single report loudly heralded a land
use issue that had not been so strongly recognized before.

Michigan ’s Environment and Relative Risk Report, 1992

The Relative Risk Report, released by Governor Engler in the Spring of 1992, compiled
the environmental perceptions of a 45-member committee made up of 15 scientists, 15
agency personnel, and 15 citizens. The group was asked to reach consensus in
ranking the relative risk of various environmental hazards facing the state of Michigan.
The results of the report were surprising; those issues anticipated to be identified as
the most pressing, such as air pollution and water quality, were not identified as such,
while the unexpected issue of the lack of integrated and coordinated land use planning
was identified as an issue of environmental risk to the state.

In response to this report, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, under
direction from the Governor, established 18 committees to address the key issues
identified in the report. These 18 issues, which state government has declared to be
the most pressing environmental issues facing Michigan in the 90's include:

.J.‘

 

.qr

 

i 0

is

biodiversitylecosystem management

absence of land use planning

urban recreation/natural resources
environmental education

urbanization and fragmentation of agricultural and forest lands
contaminated sites

alternative surface water/groundwater hydrology
air issues

waste disposal issues

trace metals in ecosystem

contaminated sediments

point source discharge

indoor air pollution

electromagnetic fields

accidental releases

atmospheric ozone

high-level radioactive waste

non-point source discharges.

Based on this study, Governor Engler created committees to further study and deal with
these problems.

Michigan Economic and Environmental Roundtable, 1994
The Michigan Economic and Environmental Roundtable, a 19-member committee,
representing industry, labor, academia, municipalities, and business, has been meeting
since 1992. The major mission of the Roundtable is the revitalization of urban centers.
While their primary focus is not “land use,” many of the issues they have identified as
important for urban revitalization concerned land use.

4

Recently, however, the committee’s continuing existence is in

a *‘A.

The Roundtable formed three focus groups to gather the views and recommendations
of people most affected by urban development. The three focus groups are the
Environmental/Agricultural; Community/Govemment; and Commercial Lender!
Developer. In May of 1994 the three groups met separately to tackle four questions,
three of which will be described here.

The first question asked: “What are the major issues to be addressed for sustainable
development/communities in Michigan?“ The Environmental/Agricultural Focus Group
began by agreeing that there is a lack of effective land use planning in Michigan, which
has encouraged urban sprawl. Other answers included the urban tax burden;
subsidies of auto traffic; freeways not being designed just to transport cars to existing
areas, but to create new land uses; rebuilding urban centers is more labor intensive
than building in greenfields; the crime, perception of crime, and poor school systems,
which make certain communities (Detroit) undesirable to live in; planners not using
enough psychology or political science when making plans for people in a political
environment; racial problems; the ease and low cost of developing pristine land; the
loss of vision of cities as cultural centers; how the perception of better education and
quality of life in rural communities effects them and their urban neighbors; competition
between cities and their suburbs; infrastructure; citizens not seeing the need for
planning; lack of a regional concept or identity; the need to equalize economic
incentives for development; exportsfrmports balance; and the need for land use
planning which supports public transportation by achieving higher density residential
areas.

The Community/Govemment Focus Group included in their answer housing,
employment, education, job training, access to health care, environmental regulation,
crime prevention, development of green fields versus redevelopment of urban centers,
recycling, financing of redevelopment, and insurance. The group also stressed the
importance of including the people who will be affected by redevelopment in the

 

_ .
a \ h E
l ' I y
. . ' .
.l
,A '
.. ‘ A
do 9 fl
’ ,0.
. .4,‘
~ .. ‘
l I.»
’ V
I
.
7 s
‘ i
. . . f
. . . '
I
. . A '
r' ' > ; ‘ '
1 I J ‘ . n
I . J I '
‘ r
i 4 I . h 'T
u .
v. .
- 'I'. .
t
. . I
. V I
.
n I .
. ‘ ' '
a K ' I ‘
\
;
‘ 4
. o
.
. 0
‘ ,
a I '
t . V
s I‘

5‘“

w

decision-making process. There was frustration with the lack of recycling of the
infrastructure and resources in urban areas.

The Commercial Lender/Developer Focus Group agreed that the major issue is the
necessity to redirect funding by state, federal, and local governments toward
reinvestment in communities. They also agreed that too often government
expenditures tend to subsidize suburban development. Also, community cooperation in
redevelopment, the need to maintain a stable job base in urban areas, the elimination
of infrastructure instability and decay, quality of schools, and political stability were also
mentioned as issues that need to be addressed to achieve sustainability.

The second question asked: "How important is redevelopment of Michigan ‘8 urban
centers to achieving sustainable development?" The Environmental/Agricultural Focus
Group reached consensus that redevelopment is critical. The discussion included the
cost of sprawl; solutions to sprawl; any alternatives if we dispose of Cities; the
economic problems related to revitalizing cities; assigning a value to greenspace;
psyche cost when viewing vacant buildings, rundovm environments; the disconnection
between people's thoughts and actions (everybody wants their own single-family house
on a big lot); and the unfair practice of farmers "protecting" open space for the public
and bearing the cost alone.

The Community/Government Focus Group agreed that redeveloping urban centers is
very important to achieving sustainability. The major reason is that most of the issues
listed in question number one occur in urban centers. With revitalization, urban
centers will become self-sufficient, ceasing their drain on the state's resources.

The Commercial Lender/Developer Focus Group also agreed that revitalizing urban
centers was important to achieving sustainability. Reasons listed included the
importance of preserving the human resource base within urban centers; preserving the
natural resource base by reducing the sprawl that diminishes natural resources; and
that sprawl is simply an inefficient use of dollars. The group also stressed that the fate

of the urban centers is intertwined with the health of the suburban and rural areas.
Without cooperation from all three sectors, sprawl will continue.

The third question asked, "What obstacles need to be overcome to change land use
trends?“ Answers from the Environmental/Agriwltural Focus Group included putting
jobs and people together, encouraging low-cost transportation, such as biking and
walking; the freedom of choice-planners can't dictate Choice; lack of density, malls
around fringe of population centers; lack of greenfields; short-term thinking;
exportfrmport balance; disincentives to invest in large cities (Detroit); lack of lending
support; contaminated sights; lack of information on cost of development; sprawl; lack
of political leadership and courage; and political fragmentation.

The Community/Govemment Focus Group listed the reluctance of banks to risk
investing in urban areas; the perception of instability; the aesthetics of urban areas
(graffiti and abandoned homes); and regulatory obstacles, such as property taxes as
obstacles.

The Commercial/Lender Focus Group mentioned that EPA and MDNR regulations are
a large obstacle in redeveloping urban centers as they require very expensive clean-up
operations. Another obstacle is competing with suburbs. Suburbs tend to have more
money—in government, businesses, and personal income. The attitudes and economic
education of business owners, lending institutions, politicians, and community members
are also important The Group felt that government subsidization of sprawl was also an
obstacle.

TheAmericana Foundation, 1993’ ,

In its publication, Managing Growth: New Directions Toward Integrated Land Use
Planning, The Americana Foundation, a non-profit grant foundation, described a
symposium held in October of 1992, which focused on the issue of land use in
Michigan. Twenty-one participants, as well as seven Foundation Trustees, participated

‘l

in the symposium. The symposium had four goals: to determine relative issues that
fall under 'Iand use’; to determine priority ranking for issues that pose the greatest risk
to the economic and environmental future of Michigan; to recommend to the Americana
Foundation those areas that could best be served by the support of grants; and to
recommend future courses of action regarding dissemination of information and ideas,
and future involvement of the Foundation and the participants.

Within the Americana Foundation publication, a section entitled, Examples of Growth
Management Problems and Progress, identified eight problems, or issues, that needed
to be solved. The first issue discussed was urban sprawl and the loss of viable inner
cities. The publication explained that as people decide they want a more rural
environment, they move to the suburbs, away from the city and the already established
infrastructure and services. Soon, however, these suburban dwellers start to demand
better roads, sewers, more shopping areas, solid waste facilities, etc. The increasing
population in the once rural area is now causing the very same problems found in the
city. The Americana Foundation also listed outer concerns such as the loss of
agricultural land, recreational areas, wildlife habitat, and environmentally sensitive
areas as victims of urban sprawl.

Multiple jurisdictions was also identified as a problem. With over 1800 jurisdictions all
vying for their individual powers granted under home rule, land use decisions are not
coordinated between the various jurisdictions.

The Americana publication also cited changes in agriculture as a land use issue worthy
of consideration. Fragmentation and conversion to other issues has considerably
decreased the number of acres of land used for agriculture. The symposium
participants suggested that agriculture is the second strongest economic generator in
Michigan, [after tourism] and that it is important to protect that sector of Michigan's
economy. Although improvements in the productivity of land have decreased the
number of acres needed for food production, these techniques often require the use of

 

.
.
I
.
,._‘- i.
4
.
,_

 

073'

petroleum, which is becoming both scarce and expensive, and can have a negative
impact on the environment.

The symposium participants were also concerned with outdated planning and growth
management tools. Most of the planning legislation that is in effect today is over 70
years old. The symposium participants asserted that our communities have changed
since the 1920's, and thus, so should the tools used to govern and plan them.

The Americana publication also discussed public policy that encourages urban flight.
Decisions such as highway routes, low density development, and inadequate public
transportation all contribute to how and where development happens. Highways
connecting suburbs to the central City allow peeple to live in low-density suburbs and
use their cars to travel to work. This low density development causes sprawl as well as
traffic congestion. The inadequacy of public transportation increases traffic congestion
and decreases quality of life.

Another problem identified by the symposium participants is the loss of biological
diversity and open space. Loss of species makes the entire ecosystem unstable, which
not only harms ecological functions, but can detract from recreation, tourism, and the
quality of life. Likewise, open space contributes to quality of life, recreation, and
wildlife habitats. Since biological diversity and open space are major components in
maintaining Michigan’s largest industry, tourism, the Americana publication urges their
protection.

Saginaw Bay National Watershed Initiative: Zoning and Land Use Survey, 1 993

In 1993, the Michigan United Conservation Clubs received a grant from the US.
Environmental Protection Agency and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
to study and report on the link between land use decisions and water quality. As part of
the study, they administered a survey to local planning officials within the watershed to

provide an inventory of land use planning and regulatory tools and to gather opinions
about problems facing their communities.

The first section asked about planning tools. Over half of respondents (56%) indicated
that their community did have a land use plan, while one—third (33%) indicated that they
did not. An even higher percentage (72%) indicated that their community did have a
master plan, while 22% noted that they did not The mean year for adoption of the plan
was 1987. Over half (56%) of the plans addressed open space or agricultural
preservation, and one third (33%) included sensitive area protection in their plans. All
responding communities had a zoning ordinance, whose mean year of adoption was
1989. Communities were then asked how many zoning requests they had processed in
1992. The most popular answer (44%) was 1 - 5; followed by 6 - 10 (indicated by 28%
of respondents); none (22%); and no response (6%).

The survey then asked respondents if their community had regulations or programs for
a list of 20 natural resource management issues. The most popular natural resource
issue (with 44% of respondents indicating that their community did have a program)
was water quality sampling. The next most popular program was in floodplain
management, with 28% of respondents indicating they had such a program.

The next question on the survey asked respondents to agree or disagree with 12
statements. There were six categories from which respondents could choose their
answer". "agree;" "strongly agree;" "not sure;" "disagree;" "strongly disagree;" or no
reply. The most popular statement, with 83% of respondents either agreeing or
strongly agreeing read: “Economic development is a key component of our planning
efforts." The statement becomes more interesting when compared with another
statement from the survey. It read, "Environmental protection is a key component of
our planning efforts." A total of 55% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed
with the environmental statement, compared with a total of 72% of respondents who
agreed with the economic statement. At least within the Saginaw Bay National

10

 

.
.
.
.
v
.
,..
t
r . ,
T A
‘ . _,
a V I
. ,, -r
Y

 

Watershed economic development is more important to planning efforts than
environmental protection.

Three statements referred to the level of integrated land use planning. One statement
read, "Planning and land use regulations among various units of govemment in the
county are well-coordinated." Not one respondent strongly agreed with this statement.
Twenty-eight percent agreed, while a total of 50% either disagreed or strongly
disagreed. Another statement referring to integrated land use planning queries local
officials on their specific behavior. It read: "We coordinate our planning and zoning
efforts with neighboring units of govemmen ." Again, no respondents strongly agreed
mm the statement. Twenty-eight percent agreed, while a total of 61% either disagreed
or strongly disagreed. The third statement referring to integrated land use planning
again asked about behavior. It read: "We consult with the county planning commission
and surrounding communities when going through a zoning amendment review." Over
half of respondents (56%) agreed with the statement. A total of 28% either disagreed
or strongly disagreed.

The next question asked respondents to rank forty-eight listed issues as a high,
moderate, or low priority. The third highest priority issue was solid waste disposal.
(Jobs and resurfacing roads were first and second, respectively.) Approximately one-
third (33%) of respondents felt solid waste disposal was a high priority issue; one-third
(33%) felt it was a medium priority; while 22% felt it was a low priority issue.

Respondents were not very concerned about excessive land division, agricultural
fertilizers reaching surface waters, management of animal wastes, residential applied
fertilizers, golf course run-off, excessive aquatic plants in inland lakes, oxygen
depletion in surface waters, fish kills, fish consumption advisories, impaired fish
populationlfishing, mining and drilling, the misuse of trees and forest resources, too

11

.
p lac
‘ .
. .
.
. A.
. . ..
.
Z
- .r.
r
.
n
.
. i
o
.
I
r
.
l I D
, . <
I . .
,\
v
. ..
.
.

.

.
I
.
A
. ..
. .
.
.
I t
u
s
a

much traffic on lakes, loss of land available for hunting, or inadequate access to lakes
and streams.

Conclusion

While the above expert surveys come from different perspectives, a few land use
issues appeared in all four. The language used by each group differed, however, the
lack of integrated land use planning was mentioned by all four expert groups. Even
the Saginaw Bay National Watershed Initiative, which focused mainly on natural
resources and environmental systems included a section that asked about the level of
integrated land use planning. Half of the respondents indicated that planning and land
use regulations were not well-coordinated. Other identified issues, such as problems
caused by multiple jurisdictions, competition between cities and suburbs, and the lack
of interest in using and reusing urban infrastructure are the symptoms of the lack of
integrated land use planning.

The costs of sprawl was also a concern in the above surveys. The Relative Risk
Report, as well as all three focus groups in the Michigan Economic and Environmental
Roundtable identified sprawl as a major land use issue. Sprawl was the very first issue
that the American Foundation discussed in its publication. A major symptom of sprawl-
-the loss of farmland, open space, and natural environments was also mentioned in
various ways. The word “sprawl” did not surface in the Saginaw survey.

Three of the four surveys also identified solid waste disposal and/or contaminated sites
as major land use issues.

12

 

.
p
. l
. . 3
..
.
. t I
..
. n
u
k
u
.
.
I
O i
o v 1
I
v
at.
r I .
s., .. u
v ..
-
s
t
i. \ .
.
.
I
. . i )
~
err r
n . .
.~ a
. r . .
K
.
L
. ;
a
. 4
h .
. o .
4.
.. v .
«i s. .
Oh i
. . .
i o.
‘
. o . ,
.a. I.‘ .
R . . .
. . .
u
_
s . .
x .
. .a.‘ s
in .

CHAPTER TWO
ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN CITIZEN SURVEYS AND STUDIES WITHIN MICHIGAN

The following paragraphs summarize the findings of nine citizen surveys in the state of
Michigan. The Chapter begins with 2 state surveys, followed by 2 regional surveys, 4
county surveys, and one local survey. The survey administration dates range from
1979 to 1994. The different jurisdictions and dates are used to illustrate the differences
-or lack thereof—that jurisdiction and point in time may cause in citizen identification of
land use issues.

MSU Extension's Focus on Michigan's Future (Statewide issues identification
Process), 1993

Michigan State University's Cooperative Extension Service embarked on a project in
May of 1993 called "Focus on Michigan's Future" that would identify, clarify, and
prioritize the issues that local Citizens believed would most affect the futures of young
people, families, agriculture, natural resources, businesses, communities,
organizations, and governments in Michigan. Extension representatives visited each
one of Michigan's 83 counties to find out from county citizens which issues they thought
to be most pressing. Through a series of committees and various methods of
prioritizing, a state review team of representative citizens, Extension agents and
university faculty members and administrators narrowed the varied issues into three
critical state wide issues that have become the basis for major MSU outreach
initiatives. Those three issues are: Children, Youth, and Families; Economic
Development; and the Environment. Cindy Cook, an MSU Extension agent, provided
the computer files that contained the complete list of Citizens' remarks. A more concise
compilation of responses can be found in the publication produced about the project.
The following paragraphs will focus on the answers given by Michigan citizens that
concern land use and the environment.

13

From a statewide perspective, Michigan citizens’ largest environmental concern was
protecting the state's natural resources and environment. Thirty-six counties
mentioned this issue. Some counties listed specific concerns, such as minerals,
forests, wetlands, lakes and streams, and specific water bodies, such as Saginaw Bay,
while others just made a general statement of concem for the environment and natural
resources. In addition 26 counties mentioned surface and groundwater quality as a
specific concern; while 9 counties listed air quality.

Thirty counties mentioned solid waste as a priority concern. Again, the issue was
scattered in counties state-wide. Eleven counties also mentioned the need for
increased, or the presence of recycling to alleviate solid waste problems.

Citizens in 27 counties all over Michigan identified either the lack of, the need for
improving, or simply the need for land use planning. Lapeer County residents stated
that better growth management planning needs to be done. In the southwest, Cass
County residents reported that there had not been coordinated efforts for long-range
planning. Oscoda County residents in the north identified that the administration and
enforcement of the new interim County Zoning Ordinance is critical to good future land
use. In central Michigan, lngham County residents stated that there was a lack of
coordination in planning between local governments.

Agricultural land uses were mentioned in 26 counties throughout the state. Issues
ranged from concern about loss of agricultural land due to development, escalating
problems between farmers and encroaching urbanites, and the problem of maintaining
the agricultural industry due to economic difficulties, and the lack of young farmers.

Michigan Public Opinion Sunrey, 1979

The Michigan Public Opinion Survey, also entitled "Michigan Citizens Speak Out", was
administered in July of 1979 by the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment
Station in East Lansing. As stated above, this survey, though dated, is included to

14

illustrate how land use issues identified by citizens have changed, or remained the
same over the years. The survey consists of 153 questions that were meant to provide
county, regional and state leaders with information that could help them in community
decision-making.

The survey predominately focused on community problems, public spending
preferences and community satisfaction and residential preferences, and did include
some references to land use and the environment in the section regarding citizen
opinions on community problems. In this section, citizens were given categories of
community problems, resulting in a list of 55 issues, and asked to indicate whether they
thought the problem was "serious", "moderate", "slight", or "not a problem.” Two
categories are of interest here—environmental quality and land use. While the survey
was done of the entire state, the results are also divided into three regions-Southem
Lower, Northern Upper, and Upper Peninsulas. In most cases, however, the
percentages reported for the state are very close, if not identical, to those reported for
the Southern Lower Peninsula due to the dense population in that region.

Statewide, the surveyed citizens were almost equally divided on the question of
whether or not air and water pollution were a moderate/serious problem. Regionally,
however, opinions differed. In the Northern Lower (58%) and Upper Peninsulas (62%)
a sound majority felt that air pollution was not a problem. In the Upper Peninsula air
pollution was one of the five issues of least concern. In the Southern Lower Peninsula,
however, 35% of respondents indicated that air pollution was a problem, while 32%
indicated that it was not a problem.

Fewer people were worried about water pollution statewide. The statewide results
indicated that 32% of respondents felt that water pollution was a problem, while 37%
felt that it was not. In the Northern Lower and Upper Peninsulas approximately 24% of
respondents felt that water pollution was a problem, compared to approximately 43% of

15

/.

 

 

the respondents who felt that it was not. For those in the Southern Lover Peninsula,
38% of citizens felt that water pollution was a problem, while 31% did not.

Michigan citizens responded that water and sewage facilities were not a problem at a
rate of 47% to 29%. Results from the three regions differed only slightly than the
overall state figure. An even larger majority of 61% to 17% said that trash, garbage
collection and disposal was not a problem state-wide, with the regions also reflecting
these numbers.

The survey also included two questions about land use. Forty-one percent of the
citizens surveyed felt that land use conflicts were a problem, compared to 26% of the
respondents who did not. These figures remained relatively constant throughout all
regions of the state. Shoreline erosion and flooding was not considered to be a
moderate/serious problem statewide. In the Northern Lower and Upper Peninsulas,
however, more people felt that shoreline erosion and flooding were a problem than did
not.

Respondents were also asked if they thought that community planning was a problem.
‘ Forty-three percent of those surveyed responded that it was, while 24% responded that
it was not. These numbers remained consistent throughout all thee regions, with a
slight increase (up to 50%) in perceiving community planning as a problem in the Upper
Peninsula.

The Michigan Opinion Survey also included a section about opinions on public
spending. For every problem mentioned in the above paragraphs, citizens responded
that there should be more public spending to alleviate the problem. The two problems
that the most people thought needed more public dollars were the preservation of
productive farmland and the preservation of wildlife and wilderness areas. Neither of
these issues were offered as one of the 55 problem issues in the previous section of
the Survey.

16

According to the survey, the eight most serious state-wide problems in descending
order of severity were unemployment, energy cost, job opportunities, crime prevention
and control, drug and alcohol abuse, public transportation to other communities, public
transportation within the community, and industrial development. No specifically land
use or environmental issues were considered to be the most serious issues facing
Michigan in 1979.

Grand Valley Metropolitan Region's Metropolitan Development Blueprint, 1994
in 1994 the Land Use Task Force—a committee responsible for a section of the

Metropolitan Development Blueprint-published eight statements, expressing their
vision of the future for the Metropolitan Area. The statements are broad assertions
followed by strategies on how to implement the vision. The eight vision statements are:

a A metropolitan-wide perspective will influence local government land
use and zoning decisions.

0 The Metropolitan Area will be anchored by a vital central district which
serves as an office, financial, cultural, entertainment, convention,
governmental, educational and health care center for the area,
including housing as an integml part of the land use/activity mix.

a Underutilized commercial and industrial sites, which are already served
by public infrastructure and properly located in relation to major

transportation com'dors, will house productive enterprises.

- The central urban area and outlying community and activity centers will
grow in a compact form.

17

a Regional commercial and industrial land uses will be concentrated in
compact activity centers, located in coordination with a planned system
of supporting infrastructure, including multi-modal mobility con'idors
and nodes.

0 Community and neighborhood employment and service will be located
close to residential areas.

0 A network of open lands, physically and/or visually accessible,
including stream corridors, trail com'dors, environmentally-sensitive
areas and agn‘cultural lands, will extend through the metropolitan area,
reinforcing the distinct character and identity of community and activity
centers.

0 Neighborhoods throughout the metropolitan area will be attractive,
stable, safe, well-serviced and promoting of diversity.

Similar to SEMCOG's Regional Development Initiative (See next paragraph), the
primary goals of the Land Use Task Force were to contain sprawl, and develop a
healthy, central core. Open spaces that would separate and define individual
communities, protect wildlife and sensitive lands, and provide recreation were also a
major concern.

SEMCOG's RDl, 1991

In 1991 the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) completed the
Regional Development Initiative (ROI), which was a year-long project concerned with
identifying issues, stimulating discussion, and focusing attention on future policy
decisions involving growth and redevelopment. Over 100 delegates from local
government, business and industry, labor, state agencies, the state legislature, public
interest groups, universities, developers, and builders, as well as over 1000 people

18

‘i

 

h

 

 

who participated in an advisory capacity were involved in the process. The project was
initiated by the observation of a now-common deveIOpment trend—considerable new
growth occurring in the suburbs, accompanied by a decline in the older core cities, or
”sprawl." The three most specific concerns related to sprawl were also addressed:
traffic congestion, the environment, and the cycle of growth/decline that results from

sprawl.

As part of ROI, a "Business as Usual" Trend Future report was prepared, which listed
51 projections of what could happen to southeast Michigan if present trends continued.
Within the land use arena, the report predicted that by 2010, the population in
southeast Michigan would grow by 5% while using an additional 40% of the land area
for new development. This sprawl will be caused by "a 27% growth in households,
continued movement away from the urbanized core and lower density development in
the fringe areas."I

The project included a series of six workshops which addressed the environment,
social issues, transportation, the economy, public finance, and govemancel
management in southeast Michigan. For each workshop a report was written,
summarizing the presentations made by speakers attending the workshop and also
reporting the results of a survey administered at the end of the workshop. Many of the
reports related to land use indirectly, however, only those that dealt specifically with
landuseortheenvironrnentwillbeaddressedhere.

During the environment wrorkshop, attendees were given a briefing paper which
outlined seven possible Draft Action strategies related to urban sprawl and
environmental issues in southeastern Michigan. Several speakers expounded on these
strategies, and then attendees were given a survey that asked them to indicate their
agreement or disagreement with each strategy. Degree of agreement was given in four

 

lSoutheastMichiganCouncilof‘Govemments, :3... . -
WW (Detroit, MI: SEMCOG, I991)p. 119
19

 

increments "strongly agree", "agree", "disagree" and "strongly disagree". Additional
comments by those participating in the survey followed each strategy.

The first strategy involved setting urban growth limits. The strategy stated: "Continued
development of the urban fringe must be managed to minimize the impacts of sprawl."
Two alternatives were then given. The first alternative suggested that designated 20-
year urban growth areas should be created, and that no public infrastructure extensions
should be permitted outside the designated area. (This statement was the least
popular statement listed in any of the seven strategies.) A total of 68% of those
surveyed agreed or strongly agreed with the above statement, while 32% disagreed or
strongly disagreed. The second alternative stated that "no public funds should be
provided to subsidize deveIOpment outside the urban growth areas, including road and
water line construction, tax abatements or other tax benefits." This alternative was
more popular than the first Eighty-two percent of those surveyed agreed with this
alternative, while only 18% disagreed. Additional comments made by workshop
attendees included concerns about the constitutionality of such a growth line, the effect
of such a line upon the concept of home rule and upon free market principles, and the
difficulty of enacting such a strategy due to the political fragmentation in southeastern
Michigan.

Another strategy involved urban environmental enhancement. It stated: "An urban
environmental enhancement program should be developed and implemented in order
to make older urban areas more attractive alternatives for residential and business
development". This was the second most popular of the seven strategies, with 98% of
those surveyed agreeing with the statement, and 2% disagreeing with it. A concern for
social, racial, and financial equity was raised in the comments.

Another strategy which addressed the evaluation of environmental regulatory
programs, stated: "Environmental protection programs, [such as wastewater treatment,

underground storage, air quality, wetlands protection programs, and contamination

20

clean-up] should be evaluated to determine the extent to which they promote urban
sprawl, however inadvertently". Eighty-seven perwnt of those surveyed agreed with
the strategy, while 12% did not.

The fifth strategy focused on the need for an environmental trust fund. It read:
"Alternative mechanisms to pay for environmental management must be developed.”
One key option wrould be an environmental trust fund to pay for remediation of existing
pollution as well as pollution fostered by urban sprawl. Such a trust fund would be
financed by surcharges on all actions that negatively impact the environment." Ninety
percent of respondents agreed with the strategy, while 10% disagreed. Comments
involved concern about the political and financial strategies to create such a fund. One
respondent suggested that it could be argued that all land uses have a negative impact
on the environment.

The sixth strategy involved air quality protection through transportation and lifestyle
modifications by stating: "Planning for transportation, clean air, and efficient energy
use should be integrated in order to foster rational, cost effective and environmentally
sound public policy." This was the most popular of the seven strategies, with 99% of
respondents agreeing with it.

The seventh and final strategy involved high density development. It stated: "Higher
density development must be actively stimulated by all units of government in order to
maximize the efficient use of storm and sanitary sewers; to support public
transportation, which has the effect of conserving energy and reducing air pollution;
and, to minimize development pressure on fragile fringe areas, including wetlands,
woodlands and prime farmlands." Eighty-one percent of those surveyed agreed with
the strategy, while 19% disagreed. Comments included concerns about the difficulty of
attracting people to high density residential areas. Both increasing fuel costs and the
availability of open space in sumounding residential areas were cited as ways to entice
people to live in densely pepulated areas.

21

Although the focus of the other five workshops did not specifically focus on land use or
the environment, their action strategies did involve the land use/environment topic.
Within the "Social Impacts: Crime, Race and Education" Workshop, Draft Action
Strategy #5 addressed reversing disinvestment in older urban communities: "Specific
programs are needed that target Detroit and its surrounding older suburban neighbors
to make them competitive in the regional labor and development markets—halting the
disproportionate business and professional disinvestment in those areas that have
characterized recent regional development." Ninety-seven percent of those surveyed
agreed with the strategy, while only 3% disagreed. Comments included the need for
the use of tax incentives, improvements to public areas, a land assembly program, and
the improvement of environmental quality to improve the perception of the city and to
encourage investment.

TheworkshopontheEconomyaddressedadraftactionstrategyonanurban
revitalization program. The strategy states that "[a] State Urban Revitalization Program
should be established to target redevelopment in older urbanized areas. The program
would be a public/private sector partnership to identify undenrtilized and/or abandoned
areas for redevelopment, assess their development potential, develop the zones to
compete with "green field" areas, and promote the economic investments and job
opportunities" The strategy was then followed by four different funding options which
are the actual reason for this particular survey question. It is interesting to note that the
mainfocusofthisdraftstrategywashowtofundsuchaprogram, notifsuchaprogram
should exist. The existence of such a program is assumed to be desirable; and its
opposite, which would be more sprawling suburbs, is assumed to be undesirable.

The Management 8 Governance Workshop Survey addressed only one issue: home
rule. The strategy stated: "A proliferation of areawide problems in Southeast Michigan
has limited the effectiveness of local home rule as a govemanca and management
mechanism. A framework for "regional home rule" should be developed, one that will

22

contribute to the cost effective and orderly development of the region while achieving
greater administrative and financial efficiencies in the delivery of public services to all
citizens who live in local communities within the seven-county region." This draft action
strategy was then follomd by eight options, between which the respondents were
asked to choose. The presence of this lone strategy demonstrates the concern about
making proper governmental decisions, including land use and environmental
decisions.

The eight Options were: 1) Voluntary intergovernmental cooperative agreements!
contractual service agreements! functional transfers of service; 2) Consolidation of
governmental units; 3) Regional authorities, enabled by state legislation; 4) Voluntary
regional planning agency with voluntary planning review, 5) Regional planning agency
with mandatory participation and mandatory planning review, 6) Regional authorities,
mandated by legislation; 7) Metropolitan council, with appointed policy body; and 8)
Regional government, with elected governing body.

The fifth option was the most papular, with 39% of respondents indicating it as their
most favored option. The eighth option, chosen by 19% of respondents, was the
second most popular, followed by the seventh option (17%), and the sixth option (6%).
Only 2% chose the first option, while none of the respondents chose the second, third,
orfourth option. Anumberofrespondents commented that Option #5 could serve as a
good starting point in evolving toward Option #8.

The workshop survey on Public Finance addressed a subject common to twro other
surveys: the redevelopment of older urbanized areas. The draft stated: "Specific
actions should be taken by state government to improve the competitive strength of the
region's older urban areas..", and then lists three strategies to achieve this goal.

23

‘t

.I
: » x
r. l
. ..
r . .l.
.r
I A
.. .
e.
. J I -
. o . \
t
. ‘y r b
t
.
.
, .
.
v.
r a
u
.
. . r
r .
—
l .
or v
. e
(5‘ .
.
.
.
'r
C
. t
t
r
.
d;
t . .
.t ,
V a

The first strategy, "targeting of federal and state financial incentives," was the most

popular. Fifty-three percent of respondents strongly agreed with the stratOQY. while
31% agreed, and 16% disagreed. No one strongly disagreed.

Approximately one-third (36%) of respondents strongly agreed with the second
strategy, "locating federal and state facilities, making it the most unpopular strategy of
the three." Forty-seven percent of respondents agreed with the strategy, while a total
of 17% either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Almost half (49%) of respondents strongly agreed with the third strategy, "restructuring
both federal and state infrastructure financial assistance and policies." Forty-one
percent agreed, while 10% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Again, the need for
the redevelopment is assumed. Only the method is introduced for discussion.

The Regional Development Initiative project culminated in September of 1991 with the
Final Report of the ROI Oversight Committee. The Oversight Committee stated one
principal conclusion: Continuing the pattern of "urban sprawl" is unacceptable. It will
continue to diminish the quality of life in Southeast Michigan -- both its expensive
suburban fringe development and its parallel disinvestment and abandonment of older
communities. The Report also included 16 conclusions about the cause and effect of
urban sprawl and seven recommendations for improvements. The third
recommendation indicated a need for a set of land use planning guidelines for use in
regional and local government Through these guidelines, efficient and compact
development could be encouraged. Open space, agricultural lands, and
environmentally sensitive lands could also be protected. And finally, the
recommendation stated that such guidelines should preserve existing infrastructure and
strive to redevelop the older urban core. Another recommendation was to create a
mandatory regional review process for projects that would impact the area.

24

l I‘ll 'Ilrflll'lx-‘ll

Ottawa County Development Plan: Vlslons and Goals Process, 1994

Appendix A of the Ottawa County Development Plan, entitled Visions and Goals
Process, described the five steps involved in developing a vision for Ottawa County: 1)
review of the goals and objectives of Ottawa County's community plans; 2) discussion
among the Ottawa County Flaming Commission of issues and concerns; 3) survey of
Ottawa County Planning Commissioners to gather opinions and ideas; 4) regional
seminars to determine issues of critical concern; and 5) the formation of Visions and
Goals for major issues.

In the first step, the goals and objectives of the community plans of the cities and
townships in Ottawa County were reviewed. (This review involved thirteen
communities, including the City of Zeeland, City of Grand Haven, Holland Township,
Tallmadge Township, Blendon Township, Polkton Township, Grand Haven Township,
City of Hudsonville, City of Coopersville, Park Township, Allendale Township, Crockery
Township, and Spring Lake Township.) The most often cited community goals were the
protection of natural resources, the separation of incompatible land uses, and a safe
and efficient roadway system. All thirteen plans included these three goals. Ten
communities mentioned the need to provide adequate park land/recreation
opportunities as a community goal, while seven included the goal of protecting
agricultural lands. Five communities made protecting cpen space and encouraging low
density residential development a community goal. Three communities felt that
providing balanced amounts of industrial, residential, and commercial lands should be
a community goal. Two communities mentioned preserving rural character as a
community goal.

The Ottawa County Planning Commission discussed issues relating to Ottawa County's
future privately, before including a broader group of people. They discussed five
issues: the environment; land use; transportation, community facilities/utilities; and
communication/education. The environmental concerns included sand dunes,
lakeshore, erosion, wetlands, floodplains, air quality, water quality-surface and

25

groundwater, agricultural processes, Grand Rapids sewer overflows, dredging
operations, and farmland preservation. They also discussed how growth policies could .
affect the quality of the environment. A major cause of the continued growth and
sprawl is the suburban paradox—people move to rural areas for peace and quiet, but
their presence alters the rural character. A final concern discussed by the Ottawa
County Flaming Commission relating to the environment was that improper land use is
degrading environmentally sensitive areas.

Within the context of land use, the Ottawa County Planning Commission discussed the
ability to develop land-locked parcels; the best locations for siting of industrial parks;
the efficiency of land use through cluster development and preservation of open space;
the access, proximity to population, and the availability and use of park land; and prime
farmland preservation policies.

Another part of the Vision for Ottawa County process involved an opinion survey that
was sent to local planning commissioners. Opinions on growth, community assets,
issues facing Ottawa County, and services were given. The first question dealt with
growth trends in Ottawa County. The survey offered five statements about growth
trends in Ottawa County. Respondents could choose as many statements with which
they agreed. The majority of those surveyed felt that Ottawa County should promote all
types of development for a self-sufficient community. The next most popular response
was to slow youth. The least popular response was to discourage or slow growth.

Question two asked the planning commissioners for their general feeling about the
impact good planning can have on growth in Ottawa County. A strong majority—93%-
felt that strong planning tools are needed to achieve quality development. F ilty percent
felt that growth is inevitable and planning must be flexible enough to allow all kinds of

growth.

26

 

, ' l
v ~ ,.
a . .
. ~ ' .
.l
. . ~ l
. , r i . ' .
. t, ' ‘ 2 . 9|.l ‘
,1 , ~ . I
~ 1 , .,
' I , . I .
i
i . o _
, i
.. I .
. ‘ ,
. '> K .‘t
. l. _ . It s
e . ’
. e
. r
.- , .‘t 1
. r
. - o
O ‘ l y
. > I
i.
‘ .
| l -
. I ~
. - \
- .5. - . r
‘ .
.‘ D a ’
i e
L . .
~ .
l j » ,
_ I i ll “

 

 

0

Question three asked that the respondents identify the greatest assets of their
communities. The commissioners were allowed to choose five of the twelve assets
listed. Sixty-eight percent of the commissioners (which tied for the second highest
asset after excellent school systems) responded that the small town living or rural life
style was a great asset of the community. Natural resources (with 37%) and excellent
agricultural land (with 25%) were also cited.

Question four inquired about the greatest issues facing Ottawa County in the 1990's.
Twenty-four issues were given; the commissioners were asked to choose five.
Following the issue of increased traffic volumes, preserving the environment while
accommodating growth was considered the greatest issue facing Ottawa County. The
third greatest issue was accommodating, guiding, or slowing growth emanating from
nearby Kent County. The fourth greatest issue was reported to be preserving
agricultural resources. Becoming prepared for future "locally unwanted land uses" was
also mentioned.

Five issues concerned planning in general. The fifth greatest issue facing Ottawa
Comfy was 'promoting govemmental cooperation, particularly in planning decisions."
The other four issues, listed here in descending order of priority, were the need for a
visionary outlook for the future, improvement of the quality and enforcement of zoning
ordinances, educating the public and private sector about the planning process and
getting them involved in the planning process, and building county-wide consensus on
the most logical locations for various types of development.

The fourth part of the process involved regional seminars, entitled Planning for the
Future of Ottawa County. Participants discussed the same five issues that the Ottawa
County Flaming Commission discussed previously. The major land use issues derived
from this discussion were the importance of agricultural resources and the need to
preserve them; that planning is essential to ensure that adequate park and open space
lands are available; that the problem of water quality and the overflows of the Grand

27

Rapids sever system needs to be addressed, and that planning for water quality along
the entire Grand River corridor is needed.

The fifth and final step in developing the Vision for Ottawa County was to develop a
series of visions and goals. The Ottawa County Planning Commission, County staff,
and representatives from several communities were in attendance. Five issues, much
like the issues discussed previously, were identified with more precise concerns listed
below each issue. The five issues were the environment, transportation, land use,
community facilities/services, and communication/cooperation.

Under the environmental issue, five sub-issues were identified: air/water quality;
wetlands and other environmental features; fannlandlfarrning; environmental policies
and quality of life; and resource management. Under the land use issue, four sub-
issues were identified: farrnlandlfanning; open spacelrecreation; land use and
development; and land use impacts/planning regulations.

A Survey of Grand Traverse County Residents, 1991

Prior to preparing a County Master Plan, the Grand Traverse County Planning
Department and the Grand Traverse County Deputy Administrator conducted a survey
to ensure that the views of the citizens of Grand Traverse County were correctly
reflected in the document. The survey covered ten major issue areas: demographic
characteristics of respondents; perceived problems facing the County; land use
preferences; recreation; physical appearance improvements; traffic improvements;
residential development; industrial deveIOpment; development policy; and recycling
and composting.

The first question asked that citizens indicate the extent to which seven identified

problems existed in Traverse County. The degrees of severity were given as: a major
problem; minor problem; not a problem; or don't know. Of the seven identified

28

or.
I

Ali...

 

problems, three related to land use: pollution of water resources; loss of farmland or
other cpen space; and increased traffic congestion.

Respondents indicated that increased traffic congestion was the worst problem facing
Grand Traverse County with 80% answering that it was a major problem. (Interesting
Note: This problem was the only one which had nobody indicating "don't know" as an
answer. Everybody had an opinion.) The loss of farmland was the fourth largest
problem facing the County with 51% indicating that it was a major problem. Pollution of
water resources rated as the fifth werst problem with 44% of respondents indicating
thatitwasaproblem. Whenaddingthenumbersofpeoplewho indicatedacertain
problemtobeamajorproblemwiththosewrhoconsidered ittobea minorproblem, me
pollution of water resources became the third most urgent problem, according to 84%
of respondents. lt followed increased traffic congestion and unemployment in its
severity.

The sixth question asked opinions about certain residential development policies.
Respondents were given four statements about residential development with which
they were asked to agree andlor disagree. Two of the statements related to land use.
One stated' "Single family homes should not be constructed on prime agricultural land,
orchard land, or sensitive environmental areas." Sixty-two percent of those surveyed
generally agreed with the statement, while 30% of respondents generally disagreed
with the statement.

The other statement involving land use in this question, proposed: "If multi-family
structures are located in scenic areas, along lake shores or near other sensitive
environments, they should be clustered to retain open spaces to protect the
environmen " Thirty five percent strongly agreed with this statement, while 44%
agreed, resulting in 79% of respondents agreeing with the statement A total of 11% of
respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

29

 

ll.

 

 

 

 

,r I

The seventh question on the survey involved industrial land use. Respondents were
asked to indicate whether new industrial development should have five identified
characteristics. They were: heavy manufacturing; high technology; screened from
adjacent land uses; protecting the environment from pollution; and located within
walking distance of housing to reduce travel. Choices of response were "Yes," "No," or
"Don't Know." The most popular characteristic for new industrial development was
"protecting the environment from pollution," with 97% of those surveyed answering yes,
new industrial development should protect the environment. The second most popular
characteristic was high technology with an 83% approval rate, followed by "screened
from adjacent land uses" earning 69% of respondents' approval. The least popular
characteristics were heavy manufacturing with 49% of respondents voting no; and
"located within walking distance of housing to reduce travel", with 55% voting no.

The survey's eighth question concerned possible development policies. Ten potential
policies-three of which specifically involved land use-we listed. Respondents were
asked to indicate whether they strongly agreed, agreed, disagreed, strongly disagreed,
or didn't know. The first potential policy involving land use stated: "I am willing to pay
higher taxes to purchase threatened wetlands and related sensitive environments."
Forty-nine percent of those surveyed either strongly disagreed or disagreed with this
statement, while 40% generally agreed that they would be willing to pay higher taxes to
purchase environmentally sensitive land.

The second potential policy stated: "I support increased controls in land use to protect

water quality of rivers, lakes, and streams." A strong majority of respondents agreed
with this statement Eighty-nine percent of those surveyed either strongly agreed or
agreed. Six percent of respondents disagreed with the statement, while only 2%
strongly disagreed.

The final potential policy concerning land use stated: "If the state does not protect
wetlands, the county should." The majority of respondents (72%) generally agreed with

30

 

r
. . . u
is
e
I >0 n
c U
. .
. e
. . r.
J i
o .
I It
i . .
e
\. a
. s
N.
o l}
.
e
. .
, .c .. .
i l ‘
. r
h
... . . ,
. i
n .a
L. .
.
.
i. v .
e
Jr .
V.
or b
.
t

 

 

 

P

’1‘)

the statement, while one-fifth of those surveyed generally disagreed with the potential
policy.

The ninth question involved recycling and composting. Again, respondents were given
statements with which they were asked to agree or disagree. The first statement read:
"I would be willing to pay more for solid waste disposal services if recycling collection
were included." The majority of respondents (61 %) generally agreed with the
statement, while 22% disagreed, and 9% strongly disagreed.

The second statement proposed: "I believe that if I generate less waste, I should pay
less for solid waste services." This statement, too, was popular. Eighty-eight percent
of those surveyed generally agreed with the statement, while 5% disagreed and nobody
strongly disagreed.

The final statement dealt with compost. It read: "I would be willing to compost my yard
waste if I knew how." Seventy-seven percent of those surveyed answered that they
generally agreed with the statement, while 12 % disagreed, and 3% strongly disagreed.

Survey of Residents Concerning issues Relating to Long-Range Planning in
Leelanau County, 1990

In 1990 the Leelanau County Planning Department and Board of Commissioners hired
a consulting firm to survey County residents on long-range planning issues. Many of
these issues related to land use.

The first question on the survey asked residents how important they felt it was for the
County of Leelanau to engage in nine listed activities. Of the nine, eight activities
related to land use. Five related to specific land uses—agricultural, tourism, and
industrial. They were: maintain agricultural production in the County; encourage the
development of more businesses related to tourism in the County; encourage the
development of more resorts, such as The Homestead or Sugar Loaf; plan for the

31

development of more commercially operated harbors for recreational boating; and
develop one or two industrial parks for light industry. The remaining three activities
relate to sprawl and growth management. They were: prevent development at the
west end of the proposed Traverse City beltline highway; restrict development of small
residential lots to only those areas supplied with sewer and water utility services; and
support creation of a new town instead of more suburban development Respondents
were given four responses from which to choose: "very important"; "somewhat
important"; "not important"; and "don't know".

Over two-thirds of respondents (68%) felt that maintaining agricultural production was
very important, ranking it the second most "very important" activity according to those
surveyed.

Respondents were rather equally divided on whether the County should develop
industrial parks for light industry. Thirty percent felt that it was very important to
develop light industrial parks; 31% felt it was somewhat important; and 34% felt that it
was not important Respondents were also rather equally divided on restricting
development of small residential lots to areas with sewer and water service. About
one-third (34%) of respondents considered the activity to be very important, 22% felt
that it was somewhat important, and 35% felt that it was not important.

Preventing development near the proposed Traverse City beltline highway did not meet
with a lot of approval. One-fourth of those surveyed felt the activity wras very important;
15% felt the activity was somewhat important; 30% felt the activity was not important,
and 30% didn‘t know.

Seventeen percent of respondents felt that it was very important that the County plan
for the development of more harbors for recreational beefing. Thirty-six percent felt

that the activity was somewhat important, while 43% felt that the activity was not
important. Stimulating more businesses related to tourism was even less popular.

32

U

Over half of respondents (52%) considered the activity to be not important. Thirty-two
percent felt more tourist businesses were somewhat important, while 14% felt that the
activity was very important.

The creation of a "new town" instead of a suburban development was the least popular
activity. Only 11% of those surveyed felt that the activity was "very important," while
20% felt that it was "somewhat important." Almost half (48%) felt that the activity was
"not important," while one-fifth (21%) didn' t know.

The second question asked residents if Leelanau County should undertake a list of
fourteen activities with regard to taxes. Of the fourteen, four directly related to land use
or the environment Residents were given four choices to answer "Yes, even if it
raises my taxes," Yes, only if it does not raise my taxes," "No," or "Don’t know."

One adivity was to establish more open space areas for the public. Almost one-fifth of
respondents (24%) wanted more open space areas even if their taxes were raised.
Thirty—eight responded that they would like more open spaces, but only if their taxes
vere not raised. Almost one-third (32%) answered that they did not want more open
spaces.

Another action concerned solid waste. Forty-one percent of respondents indicated that
they would be willing to establish stricter sanitary codes related to sewage disposal,
including individual septic tanks, even if their taxes had to be raised. Thirty—two
percent of those surveyed agreed with the action as long as their taxes were not raised,
while 19% did not agree with the action at all.

A third action involved the area's lakes. Over one-fourth (26%) of respondents
indicated they wranted the County to take steps to improve the quality of inland lake
fisheries, even if taxes would be raised. Forty-nine percent indicated they would like to
see improved lake fisheries, but only if taxes would not increase. Thirteen percent of

33

 

 

 

respondents did not want the County to improve the quality of the County's inland lake
fisheries.

The final action concerning land use and the environment suggested initiating a policy
to promote the preservation of open space. Thirty-seven percent of respondents
indicated they would support such an action, even if it meant increased taxes. Forty
percent of those surveyed indicated that they would support such a program, but only if
their taxes would not be raised. Thirteen percent of respondent indicated that they
would not support such a program.

The third question asked residents if they felt that four stated actions should be
undertaken in Leelanau County. Choices of answers were the same as those in
question two. Two of the actions concerned land use and the environment. One action
suggested initiating a County effort to monitor water quality. Forty-two percent of
respondents would support such a program even if taxes had to be raised. Forty-one
percent of those surveyed indicated that they would support such a program even if
taxes would have to be increased. Eleven percent indicated that they would not

support such a program.

Another action suggested the County collect and recycle various materials. Forty-one
perceMofmspmdentsindicatedmeywouldsupponsuchaprogrameveniftaxes
would have to be raised; 47% indicated that they would support such a program, but
only if taxes would not be increased; and only 8% indicated that they would not support

suchaprograrn.

The eighth question in the survey asked County residents for their feelings on various
problems in Leelanau County. Five of the nine listed problems related to land use.
Respondents could choose between four answers: "Yes, a major problem," "Yes, a
minor problem," "No problem," or "Don't know." Two problems concerned the
environment the pollution of ground water and surface water. Thirty-one percent of

34

 

 

 

 

those surveyed felt mat ground water pollution was a major problem, while 34% felt that
it was a minor problem, resulting in 65% of respondents who were concerned about
ground wrater pollution. Eighteen percent of those surveyed felt that ground water
pollution was not a problem, and 17% did not know.

The statistics on residents' feelings about pollution of surface wrater were similar to that
of ground water. Twenty-nine percent felt that surface wrater pollution was a major
problem, while 37% of respondents felt that it was not, resulting in 66% of respondents
being concerned, at least a little, about surface water pollution. Seventeen percent of
respondents felt that surface water pollution was not a problem, while 17% did not
know.

Three of the nine listed problems relate to land use as sprawl and grow/ch management
issues: traffic congestion; increased development, and rapid rate of population growth.
Over one-fourth (26%) of respondents indicated that traffic congestion was a major
problem in Leelanau County. Forty-five percent considered traffic congestion to be a
minor problem, while 27% indicated that it was not a problem.

Twenty-two percent of those surveyed indicated that they felt that increased
developrrent in southeastem Leelanau County is a major problem, while 32%
considered it to be a minor problem. Twenty-one percent did not consider such
development tobeaproblem, while one-fourthofrespondents did not know.

The rapid rate of population growth in Leelanau County was also addressed. Thirty-
seven percent of respondents felt that the population growth was a major problem,
while 33% felt that it was a minor problem. Twenty-three percent of those surveyed felt
thatpopulationgrowthwas nota problem.

The ninth question in the survey asked that residents indicate how they would feel
about increased development given a list of nine consequences. Four out of the nine

35

.rl

7.?

consequences involved land use or the environment. Residents were given a choice of
five responses: "strongly favor," "favor," "oppose," "strongly oppose," or "don't know."

Respondents indicated that if much more water or air pollution were to be a
consequence of increased development, only 2% would strongly favor it; 3% would
favor it; 23% would oppose it; and over two-thirds (69%) would strongly oppose it If a
little more water or air pollution were the consequences of increased development in
the County, only 1% would strongly favor it; 10% would favor it; 32% would oppose it;
and 52% would strongly oppose it.

If much less land for agriculture were to be the consequence of increased development,
2% of respondents would strongly favor increased deveIOpment; 10% would favor it;
34% would oppose it; and 48% would strongly oppose it. If a little less land for
agriculture were available due to increased development, 4% would strongly favor it;
24% would favor it; 39% would oppose it; and 28% would strongly oppose it.

Public's Perceptions of Environmental Problems in Kent County, Michigan, 1972
In 1972 Kent County did a study on the public's perceptions of environmental problems.
Results were given in the form of an informal report with no specific matching of
questions and answers.

One of the questions on the survey, which was open-ended, asked residents to list the
two or three most serious problems facing the community. Crime and delinquency tied
with economic problems for the most serious problems facing the community, with
environmental problems ranking third. Within the category of environmental problems,
air pollution was most often mentioned as a concern by respondents.

Respondents were then given a list of seven problems: organized crime, local
unemployment, quality of environment, crimes against people, racial tensions, quality of
education, and public transportation. They were asked to choose the three most

36

 

.‘.

7%

1*" 5’

serious problems. The findings from this question and the open-ended question were
different concerning the environment. Again, crime was considered to be the most
serious problem, followed by unemployment, however, the environment was ranked the
sixth most serious problem out of the seven problems.

AnoflierquestiononthesuweyaskedrespondeMsiftheyfekthequalityofthe
environment was getting better, worse, or remaining the same. About one-third (30%)
of those surveyed felt that the quality of the environment was staying the same; 43%
thought it was getting worse; and 23% indicated it was getting better. There were
differences in responses based on the respondent's geographical location. The most
marked difference was found in the responses from the people in the inner city. Only
1% of inner city residents felt that the quality of the environment was improving; while
82% indicated that it was getting worse.

Respondents were asked to volunteer what they thought to be the most serious
environmental problem facing their community. Air pollution was the most often-cited
problem, (72%) followed by water pollution (51 %). Trash and litter were mentioned by
15% of respondents. Less than 3% of respondents mentioned miss pollution, urban

blight, or agricultural-related problems.

The respondents were asked who they thought could help alleviate the problem. The
government was mentioned by 31 % of the respondents. One-fourth did not respond;
18% said private citizens; and 14% mentioned business and industry. Only 2% of

respondents listed voluntary agencies.
Respondents were then asked to prioritize five actions the government could take to be

more effective in combating pollution. In general, respondents indicated that
government should enforce existing laws, and educate the public regarding the laws to

37

”it

be the two top priority actions. Cooperating with industry was third, followed by
examining and measuring pollution, and enacting new laws and regulations.

The next question asked respondents their opinion on where government should spend
their money. Improving the quality of the environment was the second most important
issue-following reducing crime-to which respondents wanted government to dedicate
more dollars. However, only 22% of respondents indicated that they would be willing to
increase their taxes to pay for more environmental programs. This percentage was the
lowest recorded for all seven problem areas.

The survey then asks respondents about the amount of governmental money that
should be spent on nine environmental problems. Very few people suggested that the
government spend less on any of the nine listed problems. The program with the least
amount of support was one that would reduce noise.

Frankenmuth Opinion Survey, 1982

The City of Frankenmuth and Frankenmuth Township administered a citizen opinion
survey in 1982. Though no sections of the survey dealt specifically with land use or the
environment, a few questions were related to the two topics.

Respondents were asked to indicate which of 74 listed situations they thought were the
most serious problems facing Frankenmuth. There were eleven situations concerning
land use, which included:

Loss of farmland in the township.

City annexation of township land.

Increase of residential subdivisions in the township.

Increase of commercial development in agricultural areas.

Increase of residential development along township road frontages.
Division of farmland into multiple ten-acre parcels.

9959.095)?"

38

 

 

. x

7. Trend to larger farms.
8. Commercially-zoned farmland taxed at the higher commercial rates.
9. Commercial property in residential areas of the city.

10. Too much land industrially zoned in the city.

11. Rapid population growth of the F rankenmuth area.

Three of the above land use problems landed within the top ten most serious problems
identified by respondents. They are: commercially-zoned farmlands taxed at the
higher commercial rates (rated #2); pollution of the Cass River (rated #7); and the loss
of farmland in the township (rated #10).

The survey also asked residents which of 68 potential community changes muld be
most preferred. Land use changes included:

1. More emphasis should be placed on maintaining the rural nature of the
community.

2. Township officials should actively promote farmers' participation in the Open
Land and Space Preservation Act (PA 116).

3. The A-1 single family residential lot size in agricultural areas of the township
should be reduced from the present 330‘ x 243'.

4. The City should annex Township lands in order to accommodate growth.

5. Because prime agricultural land is located to the north of town, it is preferable
that City expansion be directed to the south.

6. Serious consideration should be given to limiting the boundaries of the City.

7. The City should continue to restrict growth by limiting housing starts.

8. A joint City-Township land use Master Plan should be developed for
Frankenmuth.

9. A greenbelt of agricultural land should be maintained around the city.

39

N
.J

:‘i

The top five changes preferred by the survey respondents included numbers 1 and 8
above. Numbers one, eight, .and nine all received an approval rate of over 70% from
survey respondents.

Conclusion

More than any other chapter in this report, Chapter Two illustrates the wide range of
land use issues that have been identified in Michigan over the years. Nine citizen
surveys have identified land use issues which range from those broad problems
described in Chapter One (to. problems caused by sprawl and the need to preserve
natural resources), to more localized problems such as the feelings toward another
shopping mall. These surveys demonstrate the numerous and varied issues that effect
Michigan citizens.

“l

CHAPTER THREE
BREADTI-I OF ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN STATE PLANNING PUBLICATIONS

Another way to ascertain which land use issues are rising to the forefront of public
thought is to survey the types of articles published in planning magazines. The topics
most talked, debated, and fought about will most likely appear in those publications
which try to reflect the contemporary issues in planning. Four publications—Planning
and Zoning News, Michigan Planner, MSPO Advr'sor, and Planning Michigan can help
define with which land use issues Michigan citizens and planners are most concerned.

Planning and Zoning News

Planning and Zoning News is a Michigan—based monthly magazine which concentrates
on legislative action within the land use arena, but covers virtually all topics of interest
in planning and zoning. A cursory survey of article topics revealed that from 1991
through 1994 over 100 articles dealt with land use issues. Topics included bans on
billboards, concurrency, conservation easements, costs of sprawl, development
guidelines, economic benefits of land conservation, farmland preservation, fiscal
impacts of growth, growth management, integrated land use planning, mineral resource
management programs, open space protection and zoning, private property rights vs.
community rights, residential lot area restrictions, regulation of land division, rural
development strategy, Subdivision Control Act, takings cases, watershed planning,
wetlands, and wise use.

Michigan Planner and MSPO Adviser

A bi-monthly publication of the Michigan Society of Planning Officials, the Michigan
Planner reports society news, as well as timely articles about the planning profession.
The MSPO Advisor is a quarterly publication which serves the same function. The
audience is primarily lay planners.

41

Q

A cursory examination of the types of articles in the two publications again reveals the
many subtopics within land use. From 1981 through 1994 over 60 articles concerned
land use. Article topics included billboards, coastal zone management, farmland
protection, groundwater protection, growth management systems, land fills, land use
law, locally unwanted land uses (LULU's), master plans, mobile homes, modular
homes, orchard protection, solid waste planning, sprawl, timberlands and jobs,
waterfront uses, and many articles on zoning and rezoning.

MAPA's Publlcatlons

Planning Michigan, formerly Michigan Planning , is the bi—monthly newsletter sponsored
by the Michigan Chapter of the American Planning Association. The articles found
within the publication inform the Chapter membership of association happenings and
also raise awareness of planning tbpics. A quick look at the article topics since 1978
can provide a basic understanding of the wide range of land use topics discussed by
planning professionals across the state. Topics included clean-up tools for
contaminated sites, coastal management, concurrency, enterprise zones, groundwater
quality, growth management, rural development, solid waste regional planning, unified
planning, water quality, wetlands, woodlands protection, and zoning.

Conclusion

Like the citizens of Michigan, planning professionals have been concerned with a
variety of land use issues. While the two previous chapters have identified a “problem”
occurring in Michigan, the topics found in the planning publications often refer to a
technique to curb land use problems. For instance, conservation easements, land
conservancies, farmland preservation, woodlands protection, and the Subdivision
Control Act are all topics that relate to the preservation of agricultural land andlor open
space-techniques which are necessary to curb the effects of sprawl.

42

CHAPTER FOUR
POLICY REPORTS

The previous pages have reported the most important land use issues according to
land use experts, professional planners, planning commissioners, and Michigan
citizens. This section will identify those land use issues deemed most critical by
politicians and other official policymakers in Michigan. The following is a brief summary
of various policy recommendations from peeple with the power to make changes in the
land use arena.

A Study of Michigan: A Progress Report On An Inventory Of its Resources, its
Physical, Social And Economic Character To Serve As The Basis For Permanent,
Adjustable State Planning, 1935

This report written for Governors William A Comstock and Frank D. Fitzgerald by the
Michigan State Planning Commission offered the following recommendations:

0 Create a permanent State Planning Commission, with funding, expanding the
membership to include the Governor as an ex-officio member

0 Issue a “State Planning Primer," to be mass-produced and distributed to the
citizenry, officials, and agencies.

0 Surveys are necessary to appraise existing and future conditions. Work
should continue on topics such as: population trends; other social trends;
and land and topographical surveys.

The Land Nobody Wanted, 1945

This report was written by The Michigan State College Agricultural Experiment Station,
the Michigan State College Extension Service, and the Michigan Department of
Conservation to the County Land Use Planning Committees. It emphasized the
importance of classifying state land in order to determine its best use. From a soil

43

survey of sixteen counties, the report concluded that the State owned less than 6% of
the good farm land. The report also differentiated between land that should be
retained for public use and land that could be made available for public use.

Michigan ’s Major Agricultural Problems With Suggested Solutions, 1948
This report, written by the Michigan Planning Commission and Michigan State College
Agricultural Extension Service discussed the state of Michigan’s agriculture in the post-
war era. The report listed immediate and long-tenn problems. Some of those problems
included:

0 The need for a suitable agricultural policy.

a More efficient marketing and utilization of farm products.

0 Inflation in farm land prices.

0 The possibility of surpluses of farm products.

0 Existence in the farm land market of land unsuited to taming.

0 Better integration of state and federal agricultural programs.

0 Need for planning public works programs in rural areas.

0 Problems of rural-urban fringe communities.

0 Soil conservation on farm land.

0 Need for greater foreign trade.

0 Problems of farm tenancy.

- Need for improved management of Michigan’s forest and cut-over lands.

Urban Growth And Problems, 1960's

The Special Commission on Urban Problems: Committee on Planning, Committee on
Housing and Urban Development, Committee on Transportation wrote this report for
Governor George Romney. The report discussed problems in planning, housing and
urban development, and transportation. The report’s most interesting planning
suggestion concerned the establishment of a comprehensive state planning agency,
which would emphasize coordination among the various jurisdictions~state, regional,
county, and municipal.

 

'
4
V e
. .9
I A o n i.
O
I
r
r .
. a
. .
. t,
..
flu
. .
or
. .
I
e.
t x
r 1
.
x
r
.
a
s
a
.
.
l

.e I
I
v .
— r l
t.
. s
l i. I
g l
. V
.
o u
I a
. .
fl
.
I
v.
..
e
.
w

The committee studying housing and urban development suggested more assistance
for urban renewal efforts, and a program to increase the supply of affordable housing.
It also suggested that the State re-examine and modernize all laws relating to planning
and urban development, so as to better incorporate social planning in its land use and
physical planning.

In the transportation forum, the report discussed the relationship beMen
transportation and land use. The need for comprehensive planning in order to provide
a balanced combination of transportation modes was also emphasized.

Michigan's Future Was Today, 1974

The Department of Natural Resources wrote this report for Governor William G.
Millikan. The Department described a number of principles that would outline the
parameters for the development of a land program. Some of these included integrating
the planning efforts of state agencies that deal with land use; using the State’s inherent
land management authority to ensure protection of essential land resources; and
building a land program that would respect the land as a resource, yet not operate as a

“no growth" program.

Governor Milliken’s Special Commission on Land Use, 1970’s

Again, the authors of this report, the Governor’s Special Commission on Land Use
issues, recommended the establishment of a state agency that would oversee land use
programs. They also suggested that the development of comprehensive land use
plansbemandatoryforall counties; that property taxes be assessedatthepresentuse
rate, rather than at the potential use rate; that more control be given to existing state
agencies to control development with unique natural characteristics; and that the state
be allowed to review and regulate all major land sales.

45

 

 

 

 

 

I ..l .. ..
4i . i .
. I a
I I A
r i .
n ~ r x l s
.s .
i _ .
. r. . . ..
..~
.
. all
. . . .‘.
‘2
I .7
.. ‘
s p
. .-
. l1
0 .
n. r
. s .1
.i
.(r .
..
v
. e if .
V .
.
ea . .. .r
. r .U
\ C n
. .u.
. r}
l r.. . .h
c .-
‘. . .r
~.
. . I!
o . . . .-
n. . .
. .
. . .
. Kr V
o
u r
, . u
. i
x
r
Ina
. or
. .
m. r
u
U.
r
\ v
.
s
4 . a
u I.
. e
. 2. .
.
oil
. Q it
n
.s. 0
Or 1 .v
. . e .
.
,
. .
.
.Ir
..
.
t .
a.
. .s

From Crisis to Opportunity...Rebuildlng Michigan 's Infrastructure, 1985

Written by the Michigan Infrastructure Coalition and the Public Investment Coordination
Task Force this report offered proposals on a variety of subjects, including agriculture,
economic development, housing, solid waste, transportation, waste water, and water
supply. As can be gleaned from the title, the subject matter involved the preservation,
maintenance, and re-adaptation of existing infrastructure. Emphasis is also placed on
recycling and educational programs.

Water Resources for the Future, Michigan ’s Action Plan, 1987

The Great Lake and Water Resources Planning Commission wrote this report for
Governor James J. Blanchard. The report covered a variety of issues, including Great
Lakes protection, watershed protection, wrater for economic development, public
education and involvement, water resource data collection, competing water uses and
rights, flooding, groundwater management, inland lake management, pollution,
shoreline erosion, wastewater management, and wetland management.

Report of the House Republican Land Use Task Force, 1994

Written by Representative Stille and his Land Use Task Force, this report offered
numerous suggestions concerning land use. The unification of planning and zoning
enabling acts was a major component, as well as legislation that would provide a local
transferable development rights agreement, local purchasable development rights,
revisions of the Subdivision Control Act, and a Regional Impact Coordination Act.
Information-gathering activities, such as creating a map depository and providing
assistance with GIS acquisition was suggested. Such preservation activities as sand
dune, wetland and timber management, as well as agribultural preservation was also
discussed.

 

I £‘Il

 

I. l i l i
l .
i e
L...
A... . . . . .
.- .
i u '1 L a
u .
s t
e . t.
s, . s
s .
L. .
. r
l . . t .
.
. \ r
r
.r
.. .
A .
u
t . ..
.la
s
\
v 9 .
.
... ..
(R. v
i.
.. .1 . .
A. .
.I.. ‘
a,
.
. .
M I.
s ,
16 . .
u a
a. i
.
er .1»
.
7
. I.
. s. . ...
r , ...
I
VII . . a
to
.
..
. II
.1 .
I I
A X! I-
i h ,
u. ,
. D
.
. .
/ r
.
. s .
e . .
.
t .r .t

House Republican Task Force Report on Urban Strategy and Community
Development, 1994

Representative Dolan’s Task Force on Urban Strategy and Community Development
provided suggestions on how to revitalize Michigan’s sagging urban areas. Various
suggestions are given on financing opportunities, technical assistance, education,
business and industrial development, and encouraging intra-govemmental cooperation
to improve urban centers.

How Issues Have Changed Over Time

The most alarming discovery in looking at the policy reports is that land use issues and
problems have not changed much over time. This is especially true when dealing with
agricultural uses. In the 1948 report, Michigan's Major Agricultural Problems with
Suggested Solutions, the Michigan Planning Commission and Michigan State College
Agricultural Extension Service presented a 20—item list, outlining the major agricultural
problems in the state, many of which are still haunting the agricultural sector today.
The most urgent problem in 1948 was the need for a suitable agricultural policy, which
would include effective leadership and educational programs for farmers. A suitable
policy, while a subjective and fluid thing, is still being wrestled with today.

Another issue identified in the 1948 report were the problems of rural-urban fringe
communities. Two of the suggested solutions were to increase the use of zoning as a
means to provide suitable development, and allowing township boards greater control
over subdivisions. The Commission also suggested conducting a special study to learn
how the rural fringe developments are affecting the taxes on adjoining farms. Soil
conservation on farm land was listed as a long-term problem, which is still with us
today. Again, these problems do not sound fifty years old, but rather contemporary.

Twenty—two years later, in 1970, The Govemor's Task Force on the Future of
Agriculture, recommends that taxation be based on actual use, and not on
developmental potential. It seems the worries of 1948 had become the reality of 1970.

47

 

 

 

 

t
.
t I .1
o
. r . t
s . a
.
I a
s .. . .
.
. . .
. . e . . . o r i
.r ,l.
.
v, o
. o .
a .
i r .n. . . . r .
. . I a.
. l . s
n L
. .r is ,
r s
r _
. . l
3
, . t
s .r . l
. i i.
.i
w
l . . l t
e e II
I r
. r . - r
...
. .
\L i L
‘7 v I ‘ L
. . . .
.t
— .
J v
A .4 v § l v
. . .
. . r i
. . t». .
a»; .. . .
. .
r .
r , I .
I z r .
. r . . .
J ‘ ~ ‘ -
. . . .
. , . r
o ‘3 u n v.
. . .. r .u .
I v
t . ll . .
.lr . . ..
. I All ‘ 4 - ~
C r r ~l
_ . .
_
.4
. .
.
D .
_ s q
r
. v . .
. I . . .
. 1
a . . . . .
. . .
.i . \
a r. u'4I
. \r
r s . .
...r
i l L
r .
. . . .4
e
l . . . _
. . i a . .
r . . , .rs
.
I a r .1 P l
. . ..
. r
. t i . .
v . ..
. r
_ .
.
is
f
.. .
. .. n
. . .. . r
s.
y . i
.
s .
. . .

The rural fringe development had caused agricultural land to be viewed (and in some
cases, taxed) as future subdivisions, and not as farmland. This taxation issue is also

being argued today.

The report also observed that Michigan was in danger of losing prime farmland due to
urban sprawl. Six of the seven citizen surveys identified this as an issue, as well as all
four expert surveys and all six recent studies on land use.

Urban problems, such as sprawl, decaying city cores, and increased traffic congestion
have not been alleviated after their identification as problems, but have actually
worsened. In Urban Growth and Problems, a report from the 1960's, the Special
Commission on Urban Problems during Governor George Romney's administration,
stated that urban problems in Michigan cities had been occurring for the past twenty-
five years unchecked, even after strong early warnings signs in the first fifteen years.
Such urban problems, first identified in the 1940's, have continued and worsened
through present day, even with full knmvledge of their existence. The identification of
negative land uses and their effects wras not in question. The question of what to do
about the problem is still being asked today.

Perhaps the biggest change is that citizens and experts alike are now thinking in a
more pro-active way. People are now asking themselves what is missing in our land
use policy, as well as which land uses and their effects should be curbed. For
example, policy-makers have been suggesting integrated land use planning since 1935
as an improvement (i.e., the recommended creation of a State Flaming Commission
that would issue a state planning primer) Nearly all of the twelve policy reports list the
need for integrated land use planning as a recommendation. Now more citizens and
experts are citing the lack of integrated land use planning as a major land use problem.
The 45 citizens, stakeholders, and scientists involved in Governor Engler's Relative
Risk report in 1991 identified the lack of integrated land use as one of the three largest
land use problems. Other surveys and reports have included that issue, as well. The

48

Environmental and Economic Roundtable, and the Saginaw Bay National Watershed
initiative: Zoning and Land Use Survey mention the lack of integrated land use

planning.

The issues identified in policy reports have been consistent through the years. The
lack of integrated and coordinated planning was recognized in 1935 and reiterated in
following reports. Urban sprawl and the subsequent loss of farmland mre identified as
problems in 1946. The two most recent reports touch on both subjects, as well.

49

CHAPTER FIVE
SYNTHESIS OF LAND USE ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS

Over twenty-five land use issues have been identified in the previous pages. It is
difficult to synthesize such a large number of issues into a workable discussion. When
looking at land use issues, three basic questions can divide them into more
understandable parts.

How is the land used? This is an identification exercise. Some land has remained in
its natural state and is not being "used” at all-such as wetlands or shoreline. Nobody
decided to create them, but someone did decide to preserve them. Most uses-
residential, commercial, or industrial—were created by humankind. Someone decided
to buildasupermarketorafactoryandto usethe land inthatspecificway. Sometimes
the way the land is being used is causing a problem. Landfills, abandoned housing,
and junkyards are all land use issues that have been identified as problems in the
previous studies or surveys.

Whateffectdoes this landusehave? Howthe land is used has an effect. A shoreline
provides a beautiful view and animal habitat, which can enhance the quality of life and
contribute to the economy through tourism. Contrary to the above paragraph, the land
use issue is not the land use itself, but the effects of such a land use. For example,
increased development may cause traffic congestion, air pollution, loss of open space,
and loss of agricultural land (all identified as land use problems) due to increased
roadways. Yet the development itself—perhaps a communications company—is not a
land use problem. In fact, that particular land use may be considered a positive use for
a community, as it will provide jobs and a large tax base. Likewise, agricultural use is
seen as something to preserve. It provides food, which contributes to the economy as
anexport. Thelossofithasmenlamentedinmanyreportsandsurveys. Yetthisland
use may have negative effects, as well. Agricultural land can cause water pollution—an
issue identified in many studies and surveys-as pesticides and fertilizers drain into

50

re

nav‘

n

lakes and streams. Obviously, detenninlng the effects of a land use—or labeling a
certain land use as positive or negative—is not always a black or white issue. There
are trade-offs when using a resource.

What can be done to improve how the land is used? Even if the land use has been
designated an overall "good" land use, this third question may initiate thinking about
howtheusecanbe improved. Someofthe issues identified intheprevious pagesdo
notrefertoaspecificnegative land useoreffect, buttothelackofan actionor
improvement that could be made. For example, several citizen surveys queried
citizens about solid waste and recycling. More recycling would alleviate the amount of
land needed for landfills—an improvement on how land is used. Another example can
be found in the identification of the lack of comprehensive land use planning as a land
use issue. Its converse—the presence of comprehensive land use planning-is actually
an improvement of how land is used.

While the studies and surveys discussed previously address all three of the categories
oflanduseissuesasonelargesubject,thepolicyreportstendtofocusalittlemoreon
the third question, after determining the presence of either the first (a land use as a
problem) or second category (an effect ofa land use as a problem) of land use issues.

In the earliest policy reports the importance of knowing how the land is used is
identified. In the 1935 report, A Study of Michigan: A Progress Report on an Inventory
of its Resources, its Physical, Social and Economic Character to Serve as the Basis for
Permanent, Adjustable State Planning, land surveys are recommended to appraise
existing and future conditions. The 1945 report, The Land Nobody Wanted,
recommended the classification of state lands in order to determine the best use for
those lands. The first question—How is the land used?—is very important when
identifying both problems and solutions for land use issues.

51

 

 

 

. "N

In the two most recent studies, the 1994 Report of the House Republican Land Use
Task Force and The House Republican Task Force Report on Urban Strategy and
Community DeveIOpment, the two task forces provide lists of recommendations. The
land use issues have already been identified: only recommendations are given. The
third question—What can be done to improve how the land is used?-has become the
focus of more recent reports. The very existence of Representative Dolan’s report
(“Urban Strategy and Community Development) attests to the failure of previous
generations, programs, and administrations to solve—or perhaps more precisely, to
avert-the problems that have been present, developed, and grown for decades in
Michigan’s urban centers.

Various Perspectives

The many land use issues identified in the previous pages represent a variety of
perspectives. Since perspective on a problem often depends on the relative location of
the viewer, this is not surprising. The view of a land use problem from a living room
window is a lot different than the view from an airplane. Likewise, the perspectives of
various jurisdictions differ. Though they may be using different words to describe their
respective land use problems, the costly effects of sprawl, the need to preserve natural
resources, and the lack of integrated land use planning have been identified by a

variety of people as problems in Michigan.

Theproblemscreated bysprawlwere described inavarietyofways. lnthetwo
regional reports, the Grand Valley Metropolitan Council’s Metropolitan Development
Blueprint and SEMCOG’s Regional Development Initiative the negative effects of sprawl
were soundly emphasized. The majority of both documents’ pages were dedicated to a
need to curb the low-density development that consumes open space and destroys city
cores. These were also the prominent themes of the Michigan Economic and
Environmental Roundtable.

52

An.

 

 

Sprawl did not appear nearly as often in reports from smaller jurisdictions, however. In
MSU’s Extension Focus on Michigan’s Future, the actual word, ","sprawl was
mentioned in only four counties: Charlevoix, Manistee, Ottawa, and Washtenaw. None
of the other county or local citizen surveys mentioned sprawl. Given the large amount
of information cited in the regional studies and other reports about the problems of
sprawl, itseemsstrangethattherewouldbesuchadiscrepancywiththemore local
studies.

A possible answer for this dilemma lies in the physical description of sprawl. Such a
pattern of development is difficult to see when looking at a small portion of the picture,
but quite apparent when looking at an entire region or state. Sprawl may not be
evident in a neighborhood, city, or county. These are where survey respondents live
and work It is home: not an undesirable land use pattern. It is not surprising, then,
that when questioned, county and local survey respondents do not cite sprawl as a
major issue. They do see sprawl’s effects on their communities, however. They just
use different words to describe the situation.

For example, in MSU Extensbn's Focus on the Future, 31 counties did refer to
elements of sprawl. They used terms such as: “increased development” “population
growth:' "uncontrolled growth threatens rural life;" preserve greenland, open space;'
‘recycle old industrial space;' ”intensity of land use and population pressure...requires
special attention;" 'consequences of growrth;” and "increased traffic congestion.” In
addition, many other references were made to the loss of agricultural land, the
importance of maintaining agricultural land and open space, and the escalating friction
between farmers and encroaching urbanites. This points out the need for a broader
understanding of planning and community development theories and terms. When
identifying the issues becomes a confusing game of vocabulary and semantics,
solutions are delayed.

53

I‘.‘I

il' I

I'I'IIII'II .

Almost all those surveyed or reporting recognized the need to protect the state’s
natural resources and environment. A concern for water quality, air quality, land,
forests, wetlands, lakes and streams, lakeshores, and sand dunes was mentioned as
either a quality of life concern or as an economic interest. An integral part of the
concern over natural and environmental resource protection was the fear that
increased development would deplete these resources. This issue, as well, can be
interpreted as an outgrowth of the impacts of sprawl.

A lack of integrated land use planning was mentioned in each type of report. Experts,
citizens, and policy-makers have all identified this deficiency as a problem. The
Saginaw Bay National Watershed Initiative reported that less than one—fourth (23%) of
planning officials within the watershed felt that land use regulations among various
units of government within the county were well-coordinated. Policy change in this
area has been called for since 1948. Integrated and coordinated land use planning
has the potential to alleviate sprawl, while still ensuring development with a specific
interest in preserving land, air, water, forests, and natural features of the state for the
benefit of present and future generations.

Solid waste emerged as an often cited issue at the county and local level, but was
virtually non-existent at the regional level. As stated previously, thirty counties
identified solid waste as an issue in MSU Extension’s Focus on Our Future, with eleven
more stating the need for increased recycling. All of the other county citizen surveys
identified solid waste as an issue in their community, as well.

Conclusion

When organizing the thought process for this working paper, before analyzing the data
collected, I expected to find great changes in the land use issues identified in reports
over time. I expected to be able to formulate a contrasting list of “pro-1970 land use
issues” and “post-1970 land use issues.” This was not the case. The most important

54

pattern recognized in comparing the issues identified by citizens, experts, and policy-
makers was that these groups have identified the same issues as problems for years.

Sprawl, and its effects—loss of farmland, increased traffic congestion, air pollution-
were identified by each population surveyed. Citizens, lay planners, professional
planners, and land policy makers have also agreed on the need to actively preserve
natural resources, as well as finding a better approach toward solid waste disposal.
And a newer issue - the lack of integrated land use planning — has been repeated by
all groups, as well. Policy-makers and land use professionals were the first to notice
the problem, but citizen surveys have also realized the detrimental effects that a lack of
coordinated planning can cause.

Perhaps it is a political miracle, but citizens and policy makers have been in agreement
that something should be done about many of the identified land use problems for
years. In politics, the achievement of consensus is often the most time-consuming and
difficult part of the process of change. This part of the process is finished. Yet nothing
has been done. This is where the miracle ends.

Perhaps it is a lack of vision as to wrhat can be done: but this would suggest that policy
makers have not outlined any recommendations or actions in their many reports. A
cursory look at some of the above- mentioned reports refutes this claim.

Perhaps it is a lack of political leadership and courage. Governor Millikan is often
touted as the Michigan governor most concerned with land use. Though his
administration made stalwart efforts, they were not able to accomplish all of the needed
changes. Presently, land use does not have a champion to push for change in the
political spectrum. Planners, the people who probably most want change in land use
practices, have little political power. This does not mean that change is impossible,
only that change may have to come from the bottom, which will require more work and
more time from Michigan citizens.

55

 

 

 

3“

I.

Others have suggested that the problem lies in the difference between thought and
action. People—policymakers, politicians, experts, citizens—say what they think should
be done, yet do not reflect their thoughts in their personal behavior. For example, a
transportation planner may say that we need to live in more densely populated patterns
to ensure that public transportation will be cost-effective and usable. Yet, that very
person who preaches density may be living in a spacious single-family home in the
suburbs.

Individual property rights may be acting as a road block to the path of a better land use
policy. Americans do not want their lives regulated by the govemment. The "frontier
ethic" is ingrained into the very being of many people. An attitude adjustment—which
may take generations—is necessary for a change of support from this sector of the
population.

Or maybe nobody has yet realized that such a resounding consensus exists...

.‘\

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Michigan’s Environment and Relative Risk Report. Lansing, MI. 1992

Michigan Economic and Environmental Roundtable. Notes from Meeting. May
2, 1994.

Americana Foundation.

amusements Novi MI

Michigan United Conservation Clubs. W
W Lansin9.M|: 1993.

Michigan State University Extension Wannabe
W East Lansing, MI, 1993.

Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment StationW

WW East Lansrng. MI: Michigan
State University, 1979

Grand Valley Metropolitan Council W
W 1994

 

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, W
Detroit. MI: SEMCOG. 1991.

 

Grand Travers City Planning Department. W
8951519116- 1991

Leelanau County Planning Department and County Board of Commissioners.
1v 0 eve 0'1 “1" ll' -- :.‘ 1:: 1° 0 Orr-i310: -.lll°

W 1990

0. can,” 0 _lt°llllil? ' “Int 'is.‘i n l\ it 1972

Department of Resource Development, Michigan State Univeristy. Frankenmuth
W. Frankenmuth, MI: 1982

 

 

Call it Appendix of Trend Future Report

A Study of Michigan: A Progress Report on an inventory of Its Resources, Its
Physical, Social, and Economic Character to Serve as the Vasis for Permanent,
Adjustable State Planning, 1935 by Michigan State Planning Commission

The Land Nobody Wanted, 1945 by Michigan State College Agricultural
Experiment Station, Michigan State College Extension Service, Michigan
Department of Conservation to the County Land Use Planning Committee

Michigan ’5 Major Agricultural Problems With Suggested Solutions, 1946
Michigan Planning Commission, Michigan State Agricultural Extension Service

Urban Growth and Problems, 1960 ’3, Special Commission on Urban Problems

fl

 

 

 

GAN TSATE UNIVE EFI SITY LIBRARIE

llllllllllll IHII Ill

lllllllllllill Hill

31293 02645 9929

 

 

.....