Be forewarned...this is a lengthy post.
This weekend I attended my first Idaho Smart Growth Advisory
Committee meeting in Boise. I was impressed by how much
I learned from advisory committee members representing Sandpoint,
Coeur d'Alene, Boise and the Treasure Valley.
Although the meeting was largely devoted to continuing to define
the direction of Smart Growth, as well as some identifying short-term
and long-term goals and projects, there were myriad experiences that
were shared. I will try to stick to the highlights.
There were cases discussed in which professional (city/county)
planning staff would make one recommendation, and yet elected
officials would decide otherwise. In Boise, representatives
guesstimated that up to 50 percent of the time there was a
divergence between the planners' recommendations and the
elected officials' decision.
In addition, an ordinance in Boise requires that developers meet
with citizens (affected citizens) BEFORE SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS.
Although developers initially opposed this ordinance, it appears that
most now find that it is a good thing. It appears to aid the overall
process. As someone at the meeting put it, "A public hearing is ten
feet before the finish line." As Moscow/Latah residents know, waiting
for the public hearing is often too late, and frequently escalates
divisiveness.
Boise's ordinance genuinely facilitates the citizen-based planning process,
despite the fact that the outcome is not always desirable for everyone.
An outgrowth of this discussion was identifying Idaho Smart Growth's
potential
role in educational outreach regarding the relationships between
professional
planners and elected officials, as well as among developers, citizens, and
special interests.
A Coeur d'Alene representative discussed a proposed rail refueling station
located over a major aquifer in the Rathdrum Prairie, among other issues
and politicking in that area.
The Sandpoint City Planner attended and described a number of issues
Sandpoint citizens are currently facing--including plans for moving the
highway from the center city main street. Sandpoint's dilemmas are not
unique, but it was useful to understand some of the antagonisms between
the city and county governing bodies that are characteristic of much of
Idaho.
I was interested in the extent to which professional county and city
planners and
their staff communicate (or don't) on a statewide basis. Although there is
a professional
association, it seems that it is common for planners to remain relatively
disconnected from one another.
Boise representatives compared Harris Ranch and Hidden Springs
developments, each
about 1700 acres, with quite different development philosophies and plans.
In addition,
the consolidated highway district in Ada County (giving the AHD
jurisdiction over
all roads--except state or federal--in 6 cities and the whole county) was
described.
It is a unique arrangement in Idaho.
It should not be long before the Idaho Smart Growth website is up and
accessible.
I expect that ISG will be drawing attention to the 25th anniversary of the
Idaho Land Use Planning Act (1975?) that requires those comprehensive plans
that many of us are familiar with. It is likely that ISG will organize a
conference
(or conferences) that revisit the act, and review its successes and
failures.
In addition, there was some discussion of ITD enhancement money, ISTEA,
future acquisitions maps, land trusts, measurable sustainability
indicators, and much,
much more.
The next advisory committee meeting is tentatively scheduled for September
19, and will be hosted in Moscow.
I learned a lot at this meeting. Jon Barrett of Smart Growth does a stellar
job
organizationally. The hour is late, but if anyone would like to discuss any
of this
in more detail (as time allows) or has questions, please give me a call or
an
e-mail.
I did make it back for the last day of Renaissance Fair. It's never been
better!
Cordially,
Susan Palmer