Archive for the ‘Michigan Economic Development’ Category

BARODA MICHIGAN – “placeMaking” a Great Community.

August 12, 2016

Econ of Place book cover10-year economic reinvention strategy profiled in Michigan Municipal League nationally distributed book

Today, “placeMaking”, the newest strategy for reinvention of economic troubled downtowns through creation of a new economy founded on higher density residential living, more pedestrian walkability and less dependence on the automobile, is the new elixir for past downtown decay.

While a national phenomenon, especially in Michigan this strategy is being promoted for big and small city economic renewal strategy.

Its founded on two economic philosophies, the first, that today’s smart young talent prefer a different residential pattern of development, one of higher density that supports compact social, entertainment and employment opportunities within reasonable “walkabily” (or biking) distance.

The second principle is that employers who want this young talent for their business will seek out and locate in these densely populated centers where needed talent reside.

Simply stated, business will move to talent rather than talent moving to business.

Evidence for this evolutionary demographic change is substantial.

US Census data document that central city population in metropolitan areas have grown more quickly than other forms of residential living environments.

Today, city planners promote “placeMaking” as the elixir for future economic sustainability by identification critical uniqueness of local economies and both public and private investment to create the higher density residential living environment and walkable social environment and employment venue.

Baroda is an example of the unique competitive advantage theory.

It was founded to collect surrounding farm production for transport, via interurban rail to the Benton Harbor/St. Joseph metro center prior to the advent of truck transport.

It reinvented itself in in 60’s & 70’s as southwest Michigan’s “tool & die” capital servicing the auto and appliance manufacturing industry.

Returning to its agricultural roots, in response to the demise of manufacturing, today Baroda serves as the center of southern Lake Michigan’s wine and craft brew agriculture crop production and mechanical equipment manufacturing.Baroda Michigan Municipal League Cover Article FNL  9

Baroda’s latest economic reinvention is told in the MML book Economic of Place – The Art of Creating Great Communities”, a case study of Village government investment and new business location and growth documenting “placeMaking” success.

 For me, it chronicles a 10-Years of personal history with a special community made up of a unique citizenry seeking a sustainable small town suburban economically viable walkable living environment.

I’m proud to serve as the planner, economic developer and advisor to Baroda in “placeMaking” a great community.

 

MICHIGAN MODERN-DAY REGIONALISM

April 5, 2014

GOVERNORS’ REGIONAL PROSPERITY INITIATIVE TO REPURPOSE 40-YEAR OLD MICHIGAN REGIONALISM

Big changes in store for Southwest Michigan

Will Benton Harbor – St. Josephs’ future be a suburb of Kalamazoo or can Benton Harbor-St. Joseph rise to true metropolitan status?

Governing logo“Cities are going to be the engines of the future” announced Bill Rustem, Governor Snyder’s Director of Strategy, at the Governing magazine sponsored Michigan Leadership Form held in Lansing on April 2, 2014.

He announced’ “If Michigan is going to compete (globally) it needs cities that are competitive”

Under the Governors’ Regional Prosperity Initiative, “the state isn’t going to tell people what the state wants but defer to local decision makers and let them, as a region, tell the state what role in the State of Michigan they want to play in the future”, added Rustem

Region 10 mapThis challenges civic and governmental leaders in southwest Michigan to determine what the 10-county region wants to be and who it wants to identify with – Kalamazoo, South Bend or maybe Chicago & Northern Indiana.

Regionalism reinvention is upon us.

Underway are changes that will reorient nearly 40-years of regional planning history of Berrien, Cass and Van Buren counties which in the early 1970’s, abet under duress of the loss of federal and state funding, and came together as Planning & Development Region 4, one of 14 regional planning agencies geographically defined by gubernatorial executive order.

Failure to reach consensus on a state and global identity for the newly designated 10-county region, means that communities without a regional and city identity could become a “suburban location of nowhere”, according to Rustem.

To me, this is history repeating itself.

Back in the 1970’s, the Benton Harbor-St. Joseph greater Twin-Cities area was considered rural, even though it was home base for seven national firms; Whirlpool and & Clark Equipment, being best known.

Local leaders at that time realized being rural meant being overlooked by industrial development scouts, regional shopping mall developers and many other businesses including the emerging fast-food franchise industry.

The effort to make Benton Harbor-St. Joseph a Metropolitan city was successful in 1980 after locally sponsored lobbying for federal census rule changes redefining population requirements for metropolitan central cites – ironically labeled “the Benton Harbor rule” by the Chairman of the federal rule making committee.

However 40-years of history have failed to produce a statewide and global metropolitan identity.

Absent from metropolitan growth research and pundit commentary about of central city place making is any mention of the Benton Harbor-St. Joseph Twin Cities metropolitan area – it’s just not on these folks radar screens.

So here we have history repeating itself.

Back 40-years ago, the Benton Harbor-St. Joseph Twin Cities Area was “just another undiscovered rural area”.

Today, the Benton Harbor-St. Joseph Twin Cities Area again is an “unrecognized slow/no-growth small metropolitan area”.

The Benton Harbor-St. Joseph Twin Cites Metropolitan Area has failed to grow into a dominate “regionally recognized city center” that businesses and people, especially young talented people identify.

Truth is – change needs to happen for a successful growing population future.

It’s no longer acceptable to look at self-contained inward growth policies but to reach out and connect with others.

This is a “tough job” recognizing the Benton Harbor-St. Joseph Twin Cities area is relatively self-contained economic market surrounding by smaller cities better connected to more vibrant larger central city markets, some in Michigan and some in Indiana.

This message is a wakeup call.

It’s time to begin a process of regional planning, to lock in some of the past success in collaboration and cooperation to forge a global regional identity, whether that be a stand-alone Benton Harbor-St. Joseph Twin City identity, a Kalamazoo suburban-based small metro identity, a South Bend suburban-based small metro identity or something different connecting with the Chicago multi-state metropolitan identity.

Bill Rustem is not only a good policy wonk but a strategist who can look through a clear-lens and see both long and short-term strategies that can be implemented to achieve public policy objectives.

His message at the Leadership Forum is quite clear, “the Governor is giving Michigan’s local leaders and the public an opportunity, to work with the public and business community to create Michigan’s Future”. 

The message is pretty clear, its central cities and regions that matter.

Failure to recognize and accept these changes, or resist them, means one, or both, will lose.

TRANSFORMATIONAL MUNICIPAL LEADERSHIP

April 1, 2014

Why some small & medium sized communities are successful with economic reinvention and others become ghost towns!

Richard G. Longworth in his book “Caught in the Middle – America’s Heartland in the Age of Globalization”,  lays the historic groundwork explaining why some communities become ghost towns – the failure to adjust to change…being transportation, communications or market force changes that reshape the local economy. Today similar changes such as a lack of direct interstate roadway or high-speed internet connectivity are reshaping future sustainability of many smaller communities, especially those not having connection to a metropolitan area. There is ample evidence that metropolitan regions are the collectors of population growth, increased household wealth, creative workforce talent and ultimately future prosperity. As the concentration of growth trends continue to accumulate in metropolitan areas, smaller communities, especially those lacking connectivity to metropolitan areas, will face economic sustainability challenges. While a large number of smaller communities will inevitability be unable, or unwilling, to make necessary political and civic changes leading to prosperity, others will “take-on” challenges to reinvent themselves for the future. Study of successful smaller communities, over the past 40-years has led me to identify ten key ingredients, which will separate ghost towns from successful small towns of the future:

 1. Transformational LeadershipDilbert leadership

Every successful community has one – they are “action figures” persons with the personality and leadership “karma” drawing together differing, and at times conflicting, pathways into a single direction – “they’re the lead dog in the sled team and pilot the direction for others to follow along.”

Successfully communities in the future will all have a leader, a single person who collects and draws together ideas, combines individualized personal commitments, plots-out a uniform action strategy and sets-in-place the deployment process to implement change.

 2. Long-term Consensus Strategy

In today real world agreement doesn’t exist anymore comments Aaron Anthony, Bridgman MI, City Manager, “it’s a generally held conclusion that 100% agreement is a figment of imagination and that we can get everyone on the same page when forming community strategy”. But successful community development is founded on the premise that we can set aside our differences and reach agreement upon certain principles that result in a strategy that all parties accept and will implement.

Successfully communities in the future will be guided by a generally recognized, and community accepted, long-term consensus strategy that in general terms, tells where the community wants to be in the future – a compass point showing direction rather than specific GPS instructions for the journey.

 3. Dedicated “Single-Focus” Management

Unlike 40-years back where community leaders had a limited number of issues to handle, today’s municipal community development function is far more complex, governed by a greater number of laws and regulations, influenced by a larger number special interest groups and susceptible to increased legal intervention. Constantine MI, City Manager, Mark Honeysett sums it up quickly, it’s easy to get to many things on the plate at the same time and get nothing accomplished.  The result is more time, more money and more complexity in carrying-out both the civic and governmental community development function”.

Successfully communities in the future will those communities who recognize and realize that a community cannot address every issue at the same time and direct both human and financial resources to a prioritized list of needed accomplishments.

 4. Long-term Funding Mechanisms

Transformation according to Bridgman MI, Manager, Aaron Anthony, “is not an “annual pay-as-you-go proposition, but a multi-year commitment of interconnected projects that required several years of funding to achieve best results.   Communities that recognize implementation does not comply with election cycles or annual budget cycles have a better chance for success”.  Modern municipal project management requires identification of all potential funding sources with their probability of funding success as part of the project planning process to help communities better define the overall project scope and anticipate costs in an effort to achieve greater implementation success.

Successfully communities in the future will recognize the value of multi-year project budgeting opposed to annually deciding what can spent and how to use the annual community budget.

 5. Leverage Funding Opportunities

Change is costly with most major “transformational” projects exceeding the annual tax revenue of most communities.  This results in reliance upon other funding sources. Federal and state grants are always viewed as the first supplemental source, but tax increases, tax increment financing, borrowings and even private donations all have place in leveraged funding opportunities.

Successful communities in the future will rely on realistic expectations of  grant and other funding sources and consider the ability to complete projects using only local funds.

 6. Experienced Technical Guidance

Local elected officials “don’t have to be smart – only popular enough to get elected” was told to me many years ago Cass County, MI Commissioner Johnnie Rodebush, “the best thing we can do is hire smart guys, like you, to help guide us in making things work.” It is uncommon occurrence that once elected, the elected official has comprehensive knowledge of the vast number of governmental programs available leading to  reliance upon technical help and services to assist in successful project implementation.

Today and even more in the future, successful communities will realize navigating the complex, ever-changing, municipal world, requires good advice and technical assistance from qualified and experienced help for success.

 7. Appetite for Civic & Political Risk

Supporting civic and governmental change implies taking risks – risk of criticism, risk of losing an election and possibly loss of community status and position in social and civic organizations.

Successful communities in the future will identify risk taking as an accepted part of a successful transformation process and celebrate rather than shy away from possible adverse effects of implementing change.

  8. Acceptably for System Changes Needed for Success

Government structure, especially in some Midwest states, was born in the late 1800’s and remains in place today.  However, the reliance on single government solution, guided by independent separatist elected bodies at times hinders the ability to solve problems which span multiple government jurisdictions such as potable water supply and sewerage collection/treatment, storm water management and transportation.

Successfully communities in the future will have relinquished some of today’s commonly held duties in favor of multi-jurisdictional delivery systems that may offer cost savings, provide superior services and more efficient management oversight.

 9. Unrelentless Pursuit of Success

Author Tom Peters, in his 1980’s book “In Search for Excellence” chronicled the theory of successful companies based on a total commitment and passion for excellence.  So too with community development, strategy a long-term passion for success always trumps stop-and-start attempts.

Successful communities in the future will not only subscribe to a passion for success but leverage this passion in pursuit of continual success.

  10. Civic Acceptance of Need for Success

Bob Gets, Village of Baroda MI, President, credits Baroda’s nationally recognized economic reinvention success to the community acceptance that “if we didn’t make a change we would become another Michigan ghost town” upon realization, in 2004,  that the loss of  over 10 tool & die shops with over 220 employees would never return. Most communities need a life-or-death realization to create the wanna-factor and wake-up a passive community mind-set that changes must happen.

Successfully communities in the future will have a civic “wanna-factor” for a successful future and economic sustainability – a spirit that is communicated and is easily recognizable outside of the community.

FINAL THOUGHTS

 Successful smaller communities need transformational leadership for success.

As Longworth states “like it or not, it’s the cities that are the economic engines of the 21st Century.  The small towns may be the spiritual anchors of the Midwest, but they no longer serve as the economic engine of the future.  Only those smaller communities that have the courage and political ability to reinvent themselves and integrate themselves in the new economy will prevent the ghost town from becoming reality”.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TODAY, TOMORROW AND BEYOND – Preparing for the future?

March 12, 2014

Over the past several years, my friend Craig Hullinger, former Economic Development Director of Peoria Illinois, and I have annually surveyed our colleagues in the economic development, city management and the community planning profession asking what they believe are the “most important & biggest trends” influencing their daily work tasks both today and in the coming year.

This is always a fun exercise.

Most of our colleagues are “old guys” with 30+ years of experience.  However, we sprinkle some “younger blood” into the conversation so the old guys don’t mentally fossilize!

I decided this year to sit back and look deeply into the crystal ball again and characterize what in our collective opinion are the 10 most likely trends that will shape how communities conduct their community planning and economic development programs in the future.

The results were not what I expected.

In the past, we identified changes, ones I would say, were not very “transformational” to the profession.

The results of this current survey, I believe, are “life changing”.

In my opinion, the changes identified characterize a new generation of leadership and principles that will guide community growth as we journey through the remainder of the 21st Century.

With thanks to all contributors, here are my thoughts and predictions for this generational change.

1.  Old people will die – Generation X and Millennials (Generation Y) will lead.

The “baby boomers” are getting old and are leaving the work force – leadership is being transferred.

Senator Alan Simpson, coauthor of the Bowles Simpson Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Plan, on CNBC recently stated “there are 10,000 people each day turning 65-years old” resulting in baby-boomers retiring and leaving the workforce in massive numbers, some by choice and some by business downsizing via early retirements and layoff.

Today, Generation X, those ages between 34-54 years, are taking over corporate and government leadership.  Even the top job in the US, the President, is taken by a Generation X’er; 52-year old President Obama.

This younger generation, especially the millennials (Generation Y – aged 18-33 years), are better educated, more computer savvy, electronically connected and have different social, cultural and collaborative decision-making skills than the baby-boomers – skills which will change the way community engagement is conducted and community development decisions are rendered.

Younger, better educated and communication savvy men and women will shape the future and take care of the baby-boomer generation as it ages.

2.  History will be the future, if we let it.

Change is hard and the older you get, the harder it is to change – “inaction is easier than in action.”

History can be the predictor of the future, if we let it. Our government system is designed to make inaction easy.  As politically safe – it doesn’t cost anything and doesn’t rankle the electorate or create criticism. To many, a major transformation action is almost an impossibility, so why bother.

However, change happens, nothing stays the same and communities that realize that economic change will happen and take action are always better off.

In the future, communities that embrace action, rather than inaction, by continually reinventing themselves will gain economic sustainability as the global, national and local economy changes.

3.  Social networking is faster than coffee shop communications.

A recent NBC news report about the millennial generation commented on the continuous communication need of the generation that grew up with smart phones.   One millennial interviewed stated the importance of instant and continuous communication – “I get a bit nervous after 2-3 minutes if I don’t have my phone”.

Where baby-boomers recognized that the “morning coffee shop telegraph” was faster and had a bigger reach than the local radio & TV stations and newspapers in communicating with the community, today’s communication is instant communication by the smart phones that transfer “breaking news” throughout the community.

Beginning today and in the future, smart phone communication will replace the importance of radio, TV and newspaper communication in community decision making.

 4.  Population size matters.

The American landscape is filled with ghost towns and more will be created in the future.

The question of whether there is a minimum population necessary to have a community is serious question; one where academic research is needed. 

How many people are needed to support effective government with enough people to appoint to the planning, economic development and other committees?  How big does the community need to be to support a church, a Boy Scout Troop, and – yes – the local retail shops?

This is a serious inquire about the future of smaller communities leading to the question of how best to divide state and federal community support funds for infrastructure development and other community enrichment programs. Do we give potential future ghost town equal access to state and federal funding?

In the future, a minimum community population size will be needed to fulfill government management duties, support community social capital needs and bring into the community sufficient household income that can financially support local community retail needs.

5.  Simplicity and speed increases success.

Michigan’s community planning demonstrates lack of simplicity.  It requires preparation of three principal documents, the 20-Year Master Plan (63-day review period), a 5-Year Parks, Recreation and Green Infrastructure Plan (30-day review period) and a 6-Year Capital Improvements Program (which may not need a review period).   Add on a downtown or other authority and you have a 20-Year Development and Tax Increment Financing Plan with a 20-day review period.

Confusing, you’ll agree, I bet.

Even for us who daily work with these laws, it’s hard to explain.  It’s even understandably more difficult for the volunteer board member who is empowered to prepare the plans for their adoption or, after preparation, their recommendation for adoption by the legislative body.  The complex process of preparation of multiple plans and consolidating them into a coordinated community future strategy adds time and costs – simplicity would mean less confusion and faster preparation.

Pity the unknowledgeable citizen who comes to the public hearing and is faced with trying to fit together this mismatch of plans seeking to understand where the community is headed in the future.

In the future, comprehensive community future strategy will be simplified and easier to communicate expanding the ability for citizen input and greater understanding, all which will lead to a better community-wide understanding of which direction the community is heading.

 6.  99% may = success – but 1% can = failure.

Majority rule is thing of past, if we let it.

Even with 99% support, it’s possible for any initiative to fail when the 1% has sufficient money and legal ability to “tie-up” the process with the goal of never allowing a solution.

This problem is not only a Washington matter but one that plays out at the state and local levels.

This era of “political grid-lock” is a serious menace to participatory decision-making giving the impression that personal participation won’t matter so “why get involved”.

In the future reaching uncontested consensus will become the principal goal of community development initiatives, a process which will increase the time and cost of the community development process, and frustrate the electorate that seeks quick change.

7.  The sand box is market sized.

Riley Law of Retail Gravitation states that “all else being equal, a person will travel to the closest retail location for a purchase”.  This makes sense, especially when gas prices are reaching $4.00 per gallon; smart shoppers will travel to the closest retailer when the price and product are the same.

Riley’s law also helps define the modern community, being the market (or trade) area where people gravitate to for shopping and other services.

The reality is that, consumers today don’t pay much attention to which political jurisdiction they shop. The fact is, many don’t even know in which municipality they reside, except when voting and paying taxes.

Today, geopolitical boundaries are less important than economic market areas when defining community. 

Economic markets, in the future, will become even more important in defining community and be drivers of need for geopolitical redefinition to increase economic sustainability encouraged by community development planning and economic development strategy implementation separated from the confines of geopolitical boundaries.

8.  Taxable value is population growth driven.

Almost all communities rely on real estate taxes to fund governmental services and most local taxes are based on the value of real estate.

Ultimately the law of supply and demand rules the community real estate tax revenue.

Communities with population growth, new households added from in-migration and young folks setting-up their first households; stimulate demand for existing and new homes.

More households bring more spending creating the need for commercial real estate investment.

It’s easy to see that communities with population growth will tend to have an increasing real estate taxable value and those with stable or no population growth will tend to have a stable or decreasing real estate taxable value.

In the future, community population growth will become more important as a means to increase governmental revenue and community development measures will focus on actions to stimulate population growth.

9.  Bad times = innovation & entrepreneurism.

It’s an accepted fact that small businesses and entrepreneurs are the community job creators.

The economic recession has focused attention on this phenomenon to fulfill the job creation expectations of communities suffering from high unemployment.

It’s the mantra of economic development practice today – grow your own jobs!

Studies, most notable by the Kauffmann Foundation, demonstrate the promise of the “grow your own jobs” theory.  They document that 54% of millennials seek to start a business and that three of each 1,000 adults desire to start a business. 

Many start-up businesses result from the lack of job opportunities, others from the realization that starting a small business can be a personal career choice and for some the ability to mimic start-up financial success of others.

Economists have documented today’s post-recession recovery is no different than past recession recoveries shown by small business innovation and expansion trends presented daily in today’s media.

Community economic development strategy will continue to place more emphasis on innovation and efforts towards home-grown job creation by mentoring expandable smaller businesses, facilitating the start-up of new businesses and educating young people that entrepreneurship can be a  personally satisfying and financially rewarding career choice.

 10.  Status quo biases leads to failure.

Communities don’t easily change; in fact, there is a bias towards change.

It’s easier to deny the need for change than to implement change, but a community that doesn’t change stagnates.

Most often a major event – loss of a major employer – is needed to drive home the need for change.

There are individual and community wide mental biases against change and noted economist Thomas Friedman best describes five stages of the mental process leading to economic stagnation, with some editorial comments we’ve all heard, as follows:

1.  You’re wrong and I can prove it.

Everything is just fine – it’s always been this way.

2.  You’re right but it doesn’t matter.

Yes, we should make some changes but it won’t help.

3.  Ok, it’s time to change & we can.

Woops, we were wrong and we now need to make changes.

4.  Of course we need to change but it’s too late to do anything.

Ouch, we’re too late to make anything better.

5.  Yes, we must change but the disruption will do political damage.

I’m not going to take on this risky job – leave it to someone else.

In the future, many communities will march into the future with the community development goals they have…not the ones they want to have, or the ones they wish to have until they realize that a successful community is one that reinvents itself as the community and its economy changes and develops the civic leadership to guide that change.

SOME LAST THOUGHTS –

The future is bright, even though the economic development, city management and community planning profession face some big challenges.

This is not new; in my career my predecessors identified equally alarming challenges calling them opportunities, not problems.

So too, these ten thoughts and predictions pose challenges and opportunities for the future.

I believe today’s economic developers, city managers and municipal planners are ready and well prepared to accept these challenges and opportunities and serve as guides for the future.

YOUR COMMUNITY BRAND – Fulfilling Customers Wishes

March 7, 2014

Is your community brand more than a logo in my face?

Come play, shop, work and live is the calling card of every community.  Many make this their logo and seek to brand this “come-on” in the conscious and subconscious mind of everyone.

However, it doesn’t work according to most marketing gurus! 

According to studies sponsored by Martin Lindstrom a global marketing expert and author of Brand Sense and Buy • ology, his scientific researchers found, with 99% scientific accuracy, a logo is not the end-all of advertising. “The logo which most people accept as being most important and powerful in advertising was infact the least important”.  They found the more the logo is presented the more the human brain glosses over the message until it become unmemorable.

But almost every community, I have worked with over the past 40 years has asked “how do we create a distinctive and memorable brand that’s stays in the mind of the folks that we want to come and visit our community.”

Maybe a better question for the community to ask is what do our customers want and how do we fulfill their wishes?

Lindstrom’s research shows that the human brain spends only a half second scanning ad content in print or electronic media. His research also shows the brain takes 2.5 seconds to make a purchase decision.

Branding, according to Lindstrom, works on personal emotions…”fulfilling the customers wishes…the way our brains encodes things of value… a brand that engages us emotionally will be remembered and win our attention every time.”

If correct, a community advertising campaign must grab the reader’s attention in one-half second and offer them something that captures their attention allowing their brain 2.5 seconds to make a purchase decision.

With this in mind, here are ten questions that every community should ask themselves when forming their community marketing strategy:

RELEVANCE – FULFILLING CUSTOMER EMOTIONAL EXPECTATIONS

1. What is the product or personal experience that our community is offering?

2. Is this what the customer wants or is it what we think the customer wants?

MEMORABLE DISTINCTIVENESS – OUR COMMUNITY’S UNIQUENESS

3. Is product or experience offering unique and different compared to our competition?

4. Do our customers know and recognize the product or experience is unique?

BELIEVABILITY – CREDIBLE AND TRUTHFUL MESSAGING

5. Is what we offer truthful – do we factually present our offerings?

6. Do our customers agree they can obtain what we offer?

EMOTIONAL BENEFIT COMMUNICATION

7. Do our products and experiences offer an individual personal emotional benefit?

FEASIBILITY – MESSAGE AND DELIVERY

8. Do we need to change the product and personal experience we offer the customer?

9. Do we need to change the way the customer perceives the product or experience we offer?

SUSTAINABILITY – LONG-TERM STRATEGY COMMITMENT

10. Are we ready to commit time and money to a “long-term” strategy of customer wish-fulfillment?

CONCLUSION

There is no doubt the human brain is a complicated instrument that can summarize and process incredible amounts of information sorting out facts, stimulating emotions and creating memories and then processing them into a rapid, spontaneous and unconscious purchase decision.

A community brand has to carefully fulfill personal emotional desires and needs for success. 

This is accomplished when the community’s products and experiences is something more than a “logo in your face” but something that triggers an emotion response, which becomes memorable fulfilling an individual’s specific wish or need.

MICHIGAN COUNTY PLANNING – ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUE OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEW PROCESS

January 27, 2014

INTRODUCTION

Michigan law is unique. It subjects all local units of government master plans to a county planning review process intended to determine its consistency with surrounding local government plans among all other applicable plans.

For townships, this review process goes further subjecting the zoning ordinance and all amendments to a similar review.

In planning practices this concept is termed “concurrency”, the term given by planners to the concept of each master plan prepared by the respective local government to be “fitted together” and upon agreement to create a county plan.

Likewise, assembly of county plans creates regional plans and assembly of regional plans creates state plans and finally a national master plan.

This “bottom-up” master planning approach is designed to identify multi-jurisdictional infrastructure needs forming, the basis for a capital improvements multi-year budget.

FDR’s  Brain-Truster’s Stuart Chase and  Rexford Tugwell originated the concept in the 1930’s.  It was the basis of much of government’s role in economic planning whereby congress would use these plans to identify, on a national basis, where to invest federal funds for roads, water/sewer and other infrastructures.

While the Brian-Truster’s economic planning concept was ultimately vetoed by congressional action, the concept of multi-year capital improvement programs remains embedded in planning theory and today is a requirement in Michigan’s planning enabling legislation.

While Michigan once fully embraced economic and resource (land use) planning, interest evaporated in the 1950’s & 60’s in favor of economic development strategy and programs.  This ultimately resulted in a 1970’s renewed interest in environmental protection and need for government policies stimulating job creation as a recession remedy, including effort to establish a state land use planning law in 1975 and 1977 (HB 4234 – 1975, 4107 – 1977 and 4189 – 1977 plus SB 692 – 1977).

During this time the State of Florida was probably the leader in reinventing land use planning, promoting the concept of “concurrency” in its 1970’s Growth Management Act.  The state law required each level of local government to prepare a plan and link them together to create a statewide plan that identified location and timing, plus the funding source for each major infrastructure investment.

An elaborate collective conflict resolution process assured that all plans would fit together in a “jig-saw puzzle” fashion to make the final statewide plan.

Michigan’s law today is a “watered-down” byproduct of state land use planning theory employing the concept of a county planning commission review of local government prepared land use plans – in reality a county “concurrency” determination.

Today however, many question the “right “and the “role” of county planning commission judgment authority exercised by county planning commissions, in this review and concurrency role.

BACKGROUND OF THE SURVEY

To assess the value of this duty, the St. Joseph County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners recently sponsored a survey to obtain information to make an informed judgment.

In August 2012, a request was made to each local government clerk to notify every elected official, planning commissioner, zoning board of appeals member, building inspector, code enforcement official, municipal attorney, manager and advisors to participate in an on-line survey.

There are between 200 and 300 elected and appointed officials, staff and advisors involved in local government planning and zoning decisions in St. Joseph County.

A range is given for the number of participants due to persons serving in duplicate capacities and variables in the number of appointees to planning commissions.

A total of 37 surveys were completed and submitted resulting in a response rate, between 12 and 19 %, comprising township, village and city responders.

PARTICIPANTS

Responders to the survey represented equally townships and cities/villages. Over half were elected officials, one-third appointed planning commissioners with the remainder being staff, consultants or legal advisors.

Twelve of the 16 township and 6 of the 7 cities/village participated.

MASTER PLAN REVIEW

FUTURE ACTIONS

While 18% of the responders did not know whether their Master Plan would require County Planning Commission review in the next several years, 30% indicated a 2013 review, 10% a 2014 and another 19%, a 2015 review will be required.

PAST REVIEW ACTIONS

Only 30% of the responders indicated knowledge of whether their current plan received County Planning Commission review, with 70% indicating no knowledge of whether the review found their current Master Plan to be consistent with the County Master Plan and those of surrounding local governments.

Only 20% of the responders indicated the County Planning Commission review being “somewhat helpful” to the local Planning Commission adoption of the current Master Plan.

FUTURE REVIEW ACTIONS

Eighty percent of the responders indicate that they don’t know whether the County Planning Commission review of their future Master Plan updates will be of value.

TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW

PAST REVIEW ACTION

Sixty five percent of responders stated their township submitted all zoning actions for County Planning Commission review, with 36% indicating the need for one or two reviews in the past year.   Thirty percent indicated no need for any County Planning Commission review in the past year.

VALUE OF PAST REVIEWS

Over half of the responders indicate the County Planning Commission past reviews were very helpful, 6% little help and 41% indicating they did know if the review held any value.

VALUE OF FUTURE REVIEWS

While 41% of responders indicate they don’t know the value of future County Planning Commission reviews and another 12% indicating little or no help, 47% indicate the review to be very helpful.

MAJOR FINDINGS AND SURVEY CONCLUSIONS

1.  The role and legal duty of the County Planning Commission review function is unknown and possibly ignored by a majority of participants involved in township, city and village land use decision making.

2.  The value of the County Planning Commission review process, is questionable with a majority of those involved in local government land use decision making indicating little, or undetermined, value of  past and future  County Planning Commission review to decision-making by their local government.

3.  While required by law, the 5-year Master Plan update requirement is not recognized by a majority of responders with a vast majority unable to verify whether the County Planning Commission found their current Master Plan to be consistent with the county and other applicable plans.

COMMENTARY

There are many questions related to the value and necessity of the local government review function required of the County Planning Commission.  The most common question asked is whether it is important and needed.

Along with the unfunded state law mandate that the County Planning Commission review all Master Plans, but review only township, but not city or village, new zoning ordinances and amendments, many question county involvement in  local government control of land use decision-making.

For elected and appointed officials, many resent the notion of the County “telling them what to do” due to the strong bias towards this “local control”.

For some applicants processing unsuccessful approvals and for disgruntled affected property owners unhappy about a decision, the County Planning Commission is often viewed as a “super planning commission authority” with power to reverse or, at minimum, change” the local government decision.

This too – is viewed as an intrusion into local government local land use control.

In the present time of government austerity, providing services that have no, or limited, value invites inspection and possible action, to eliminate unneeded county services or to strengthen and economically justify the value of the County Planning Commission review function.

The Michigan County Planning Commission local government review function is obviously dysfunctional, as currently employed.

This analysis cites the need for corrective measures or elimination of an unneeded county government expense, a cost savings which can currently partially be accomplished by a resolution of the county board to eliminate review of township zoning matters.

It also identifies the need for possible planning legislation changes providing similar authority for elimination of the Master Plan review function.

FULL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

In the spirit of full disclosure, I have served a 4-year term as a county planning director and 7-years as a regional planning director and nearly 30-years as a planning consultant to Michigan townships, cities and villages.

In this role he has first-hand experience in both conducting the County Planning Commission review function and processing township, city and village reviews before County Planning Commissions.

No recommendation is made on a course of action to be taken leaving this to the discretion of Michigan legislature.

THE BEST – LAID PLANS

December 10, 2012

How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocket Book and Your Future

Best Laid Plans

Government panning has become an accepted part of life in the United States.  Almost every city and county in the nation has a plan and employs planners to make studies and establish plans to better the future.  Most states require cities and counties to prepare plans, some being required to access much needed grant assistance to fund local projects.

Planning America CoverIn a recent study (spring 2012) Planning in America: Perceptions and Priorities     http://www.planning.org/policy/economicrecovery/ commissioned by the American Planning Association, the trade group for professional planners, 79%  of American’s like the idea of local community planning even if they are unclear about the goals that planning should serve”.

However, according planning critic Randall O’Tool author of the The Best Laid Plans, “a plan written with the best intention, will likely go horribly wrong”.

He claims that planners who “advertise their methods as the solution to almost any problem or controversy” allow elected officials to turn over thorny problems to the planning bureaucracy rather than force elected officials to make decisions.

He notes this planning decision process is run by “well-intentioned but often clueless people called planners, who, having graduated from architecture [and planning] schools and other universities are eager to bring their visions of utopia to the American people”.

O’Tool cites that it’s  a ”bitter irony, freely admitted by numerous planners, that many of the problems that planners propose to solve were caused not by the free marketplace, but by past generations of planners and other government bureaucrats”.

He basis his conclusion on two fundamental facts –

  1. That rational planning cannot occur in a highly politicalized environment, and
  2. The notion that competing groups can sit down together and negotiate the goals for all interest groups is unachievable.

While published in 2007, the validity of his statement surely is confirmed as demonstrated by Republican and Democratic Party actions during Presidential election and currently shown by congressional efforts to address the pending national fiscal problems.

O’Tool notes “planners tend to be attracted to fads over hard economic based analysis”.  Try TND, TOD, Smart Growth and today’s placed based community strategy, as examples.

He claims, planners unlike employees in the private sector, face no risk, allowing for planning to be done without the risk of failure.

This “no risk – no consequence” situation O’Tool suggests, allows planners to  “hide behind risk-free prepackaged concepts such as smart growth principles for their plans rather than doing detailed economic analysis that might or may not lead to success”.

The fundamental premise held by these planners is that “government can be blindly objective and even altruistic and create great plans, whereas private individuals and corporations working in their own self-interests cannot.  Only government can protect the common good”.

O’Tool’s opinions are obviously disputed by planners based on the results of their recent survey.

The recent (APA) survey disclosed that the American public recognizes the importance of government planning in economic prosperity with 92% of the respondents stating they believe “things work better with a plan and that community planning is important to the economic recovery” with local job creation ranked seventh in importance by over 70% of the responders.

Ironically, macro-economic theory is not typically emphasized as a critical component in planner education.  The educational framework of most planners is based on the notion that architectural design; the creation of a hospitable and livable physical environment, will dominate and shape people’s behavior.

O’Tool sees this dichotomy – the emphasis on physical environment shaping human behavior and providing the basis for job creation opposed to a free markets making the job creation decisions as the fallacy of government planning and reason that planning never will succeed.

So what are the planners to do?

Based on the notion jobs and economic development are to be higher priority for current community development strategy, planners need to gain a higher level of understanding of macro-economic influences that shape, or result from, community development plans.

Planners need to –

  1. Gain macro-economic education allowing assessment of potential impacts of optional community development strategies.
  1. Widen inputs into the comprehensive planning process to include greater consideration of government macro-economic policy upon future growth trends and the amount and timing of new development land needed to accommodate growth.
  1. Elevate the importance of municipal economic viability and sustainability into the overall framework of plan implementation, as professional standards of practice.
  1. Make mandatory the role of “concurrency” the notion that every capital expenditure must be confirmed by a funding source prior to inclusion into a comprehensive plan, thus eliminating speculative “build it and they will come” projects.
  1. Seek closure of the gap between the practice of economic development and comprehensive planning, recognizing that economic sustainability is only achieved when both disciplines act together to implement the comprehensive plan.
  1. Make real estate development economics a mandatory requirements of planner education giving planners a better understanding of private sector risk and reward principles for the creation of real estate taxable valuation which is the basis of local property taxes that derive revenue for local government operations.
  1. Create new unique public-private partnerships infrastructure models in recognition that traditional forms of developer “exactions” specifically the donation of public infrastructure will become a remembrance and local governments will be called upon to provide infrastructure when un-fundable by the developer’s lender.
  1. Create understandable and communicable matrices to quantify and measure success of plan implementation stressing short-term tangible results specifically new job and real estate investment creation.
  1. Establish accountability performance requirements for plan implementation which hold planners , as well as elected and appointed office responsible for plan implementation.
  1. Planners must also abandon the fundamental principle that community development and economic development programs must resolve multiple problems in order to be politically acceptable and fundable by local government officials. Planners must be able to “turn their back on certain problems which maybe a political impossibility under many current community and economic development strategies.

While O’Tool claims, “planners tend to be attracted to fads over hard economic based analysis”, there is evidence that a new fad – the recognition of macro-economic inputs into the shape, direction and viability of comprehensive planning may set direction for a stronger physical, social and environmental important strategy.

NEED, GREED AND SPEED – NEW RULES OF INNOVATION TO PROPEL GREATNESS

November 13, 2012

In the coming decades, “the quest for environmental sustainability and the need to meet the health demands of a fatter, sicker and older population may prove to be the greatest engines of innovation and, therefore the greatest economic opportunity of our lifetimes” according to  Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran author of Need, Speed, And Greed, How the New Rules of Innovation Can transform Businesses, Propel Nations To Greatness, And Tame The World’s Most Wicked Problems and  the Global Correspondent for the Economist magazine.

The author sets about to challenge some of the widely held views about innovation, the role of government versus business, the supposed global crisis and the failure of the world economy.

His book seeks to build a case for rethinking of how the world approaches innovation.

He believes the world stands on a cusp of a post industrial revolution and new rules of innovation will reveal these new principles and practices which will reshape the world’s economy.

This innovation will bring to the market place fresh thinking that creates value for a company for its customers and for a society at large.

This innovation will result in entrepreneurial activity new investment and new jobs.

What motivates idea generators in the new age of innovation is not mere profit – it’s also inspired by the passionate pursuit of purpose, in part meeting societal goals.

The three great forces that drive these passions are – need, speed and greed – the need for the innovative goods or services, the ability for the innovator to receive monetary return for the innovation and the speed in which the goods or service can be made available to the consumer.

These three forces drive the fresh thinking that creates something of value.

Today these changes are undergoing as an unpresented demographic, economic and environmental transformation, as mankind becomes a primarily urban species for the first time in history.

This mass urbanization will both demand faster and deeper innovation and offer the means for getting it; including –

The need for more urban  infrastructure,

  • Responsive political systems, and
  • Higher degree of interpersonal civility.

According to Vaitheeswaran, “the road from [economic] stagnation to rejuvenation results from innovation.

He supports the notion that innovation will be aided by:

  • More STEM education,
  • More immigration,
  • Less restrictive government regulation,
  • Less government interaction, and
  • More accommodative government R & D spending tax policy.

According the Vaitheeswaran, greed is not only good but also does good – if, that is, there are clear incentives to tackle the wicked problems of society.

He believes that many of today’s efforts to support innovation are simply a sham, mostly being a throwback to the failed industrial policy tried in the 1930’s and 1980’s as remedy for a flailing economy.

He supports a more free market capitalist approach that uses need, speed and greed to maximum innovation opportunities.

BIG ROADS – TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & URBAN SPRAWL

October 30, 2012

BIG ROADS – The Untold Story of the Engineers, Visionaries and Trailblazers Who Created the American Superhighways.

A planner’s thoughts about “Big Roads”   and highway planning.

 INTRODUCTION

Contemporary planning theory stresses the return to pedestrian, cycling and bus/rail transportation as a means for future community sustainability. 

This theory also embraces the notion that additional communication technology will allow declustering of jobs to suburbia and rural locations whereby journey to work-to/from-work trips can be redirected to nonvehicle transportation.

For planners, this “holy grail” of shaping behavior is a fundamental premise of futuristic community planning.

But history demonstrates a rather different path.  “Big Roads” by Earl Smith chronicles the history of the interstate road system from the late 1800’s documenting the history and local economic reliance on Big Roads.

For us planner’s educated in the 1970’s, the 3-C (cooperative, comprehensive & continuous) Metropolitan Planning process established by the Kennedy administration’s Federal Aid Highway Act of 1962  for metropolitan areas in excess of 50,000 population has special meaning.

It was the first time local governments in metropolitan areas were required to take a comprehensive look at the overall transportation system and to make choices of where to invest federal, state and local funds.

It established highway planning as a joint federal, state and local planning process for both road improvements and new road alignments.

It forced local governments to come together and give serious thought about the rate of population growth and geographic areas within metropolitan areas where this growth would most likely happen.

Some planners today confide the 3-C planning process, in reality, contributed to urban sprawl.

We planned for future growth without much real knowledge of what the future may bring, note some planners.

We designated major routes to support inter-city commuting, high capacity alignments for major activity centers like industrial parks, and others to serve areas where we thought residential development would happen.

There were no smart growth principles guiding these decisions, urban sprawl wasn’t coined and growth that increased local government tax base was most important.

We never considered that city centers would depopulate, suburban relocation of central city jobs would occur, or suburban transportation centric employment centers would develop.

Reading “Big Roads”, provides background about the growth of transportation planning from the 1839 national highway planning concept offered by the Department of Agriculture to the rise of the 3-C planning process in the 60’s. 

It also provides background for to today’s more current legislations – STAA (78&82), STURRA (87), ISTEA (91), TEA-21 (98), SAFETEA-LU (05), and the newest FPTA (Federal Public Transportation Act of 2012).

I’ll share some on my thoughts on the transportation planning process generated from reading this book:

1.  Historically, highway planning was a federal top down planning process.

While commonly held, highway planning for the Interstate System was not necessarily a federal defense matter but defense was used to secure federal spending authority and used as the basis for political decision making for federal investments chosen by congress and the president.

Fact #1 – Roads contribute lifeblood to community economies and inevitability is subject to political determination regarding need and location.

2.  Roadway improvements and new routes will be required in the future.

Nothing gives cause to the lessening of demand for highway usage in the future with a 25% percent population growth project by such noted authors as Joel Kotkin. In his book “The Next 100 Million”.

Fact #2 – Road capacity needs will increase as population increases however this demand will not be spread equally throughout the United States reflecting geographic residential and business location preferences.

3.  Road Diets will become a topic for planner and highway engineer discussion.

Credit John Gallagher, real estate correspondent for the Detroit Free Press and author of “Reimaging Detroit” for bringing the notion that when demand subsides, road capacity needs to be reconfigured providing the opportunity to bring a more pedestrian friendly space to the community.

Fact # 3 – Unneeded capacity allowing for newer multi-use of highway rights-of-way, or even road abandonment, will become prevalent in highway planning for areas of declining populations.

4.  Transportation planning will always be needed.

Historically from the beginning, roadway planning has been a prerequisite to funding transportation improvements, incrementally growing more formalized requiring every level of government to complete transportation plans as part of their government duties to secure funding.

Fact # 4 – Multi-layered increasing sophisticated transportation planning requirements will likely remain unchanged even in spite of funding shortages for planning and transportation construction projects. 

5.  Traffic counts will gain more decision making importance.

Transportation plans rely on supplying services where demand for service is needed.  Therefore data, specifically existing and future traffic counts, will continue to be critical and increasingly more important determinates in identification of where transportation projects will be funded.

Fact # 5 – Transportation is a numbers game and traffic origination and destination data for modeling future needs will always be one of the major determinates of funding decisions.

6.  Technology will increase traffic system capacity and vehicle flow.

Driverless vehicles technology is now available allowing for higher vehicle speeds and closer vehicle spacing both that increase safety and vehicle capacity while reducing origin/destination travel time consumption.

Fact # 6 – Technology, in the future, will become the sought after solution for reduction in spending and serve as an alternative to the construction of new roadway alignments and reconstruction of current roadways to increase capacity.

7The need for speed – the reduction in transport times will dominate investment decisions.

Cargo is a business expense while cargo is in transit making businesses seek the lowest cost and fastest means to ship cargo.  Physical locations which have the greatest transport time potentials will have a business location/expansion advantage.

Fact # 7 – The need for shorter transport times plus the least transport cost will become more important in  decision making for location of new roads as well as decisions to improve existing roadway capacity to reduce transport times.

8.  User fees will become more common sources of maintenance and new construction funding.

Today it’s possible to monitor, via vehicle computers, the number and time vehicles are driven.  This provides opportunities to consider different pricing user fee models including fees for each mile driven, different fees for the type of roads used and even premiums and discounts for when roads are used.

Fact # 8 – Reliance on motor fuel taxes to fund existing and new transportation projects will be altered in the future bringing into discussion use of user monitored mileage fees, congestion use fees and non-peak usae credits as remedies to lessoning needed revenue.

9.  Metropolitan vs. rural policies of state and federal transportation funding will be questioned and become a contentious political issue.

Competition for funding will increase policy discussion of where to allocate funds – metro areas where demand may be greater vs. smaller population centers where the demand is needed but at lesser scale.

 Naturally, the competition between metro vs. rural areas, will increase and take on a greater role in the political decision making process for allocation of scarcer future transportation funding.

 Fact # 9 – Traditional forms of funding will be dismantled and reprioritized due to inefficiencies in generating needed funding in proportion to needs.

10.  In response to increased demand for road improvements, tax authorities will seek to increase sales and real property taxes.

The reliance on motor fuel taxes to finance existing and new transportation projects will be altered in the future bringing into discussion the use of user monitored users mileage fees.  Alternatively, traditional forms of local government revenue based on real estate taxable valuation and generation of retail sales taxes, a portion of which, in  some communities is directed to general government operations will become of higher importance for allocation, in part, to support transportation fund deficiencies.

Fact # 10 – New forms of revenue generation including here-to-fore untouchable real estate tax funding in addition to “fee for service” modeled revenue forms, will top political solution discussions resolving transportation funding.

 LAST THOUGHTS – will future roadways lead or curtail sprawl?

Throughout modern vehicle history, highway transportation has been critical to the economic success of cities, villages, counties, regional areas, etc.  This trend understandably will continue……..

However, while historic funding tools will evolve to provide more revenue for highway and alternative transportation modes it will be the application of sound planning decisions separating “good from bad” planning that will contribute or contain sprawl.

THE YEAR 2050 WHAT PLANNERS NEED TO KNOW TODAY!

August 20, 2012

US POPULATION PREDICATED TO INCREASE BY 25%

Joel Kotkin in his book, “The Next 100 Million Americans in 2050”, states that “America will inevitability become a more complex, crowed and competitive place, highly dependent, as it has throughout history on its peoples innovative and entrepreneurial spirit and emerge by mid-century as the most affluent, culturally rich and successful nation in human history”.

He opines that 80%, or more, of the total US population growth has taken place in suburbia, a trend that will likely accelerate in the future.

If true, planners will be faced with a new suburban land use planning framework, one that focuses on:

providing multiple housing choices at higher densities,

  1. walk-to-work/shopping opportunities,
  2. use of energy efficient vehicle transportation, and
  3. accelerated use of communication technology.

He concludes that in the coming decade communities will need to reinvent their economic and social viability.

Here are some thoughts on the trends, now forming, that will shape this new suburbia:

Suburbia population will grow, however not equally everywhere.

  1. Race and ethnic diversity will increase.
  2. Multigenerational households will become common sharing dwelling units.
  3. Today’s minority will become tomorrow’s majority.
  4. Globally, desire for US immigration will increase.
  5. Civic and social suburban “town center lifestyles” will be critical to communitywide social connectivity.
  6. Suburbs will continue to in increase geographic size and population density.
  7. Jobs will follow people but more people will follow jobs.
  8. Communication advances will expedite “declustering” of jobs into suburbia and rural locations.
  9. Organizational patterns of governance will change as citizen demands change.

Under this scenario, in 2050 social and economic acculturation will have occurred deemphasizing ethnic enclaves in favor of a homogenized multi-ethnic mankind.

Under this scenario, there will be more bilingual suburbia residents but English will remain the dominate language for social and business communication.

Concentrations of racial and economic minorities will diversify from concentration in urban settings creation and exposing suburban geography to racial and economic diversity.

Immigrant entrepreneurism will continue to exceed native interests and serve as economic development opportunities for community job growth.

 End Note.

For planners and economic developers employing these trends today will foster wholesale changes to some redevelopment strategy.

Clearly, social and economic changes for the basis of successful land use and economic development planning resulting in true government supported community sustainability.

 Action today means successful communities here people will want to live today and in the future.