Evidence Matters Transforming Knowledge

Into Housing and Community

Development Policy

FALL 2010

SUMMER / FALL 2015

Metro, a regional governing body with popularly elected councilors, has successfully influenced development patterns in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan region.

In This Issue

Partnerships and Planning for Impact

Partnerships and Planning

Communities face a host of chal- and departments; nonprofits; private

lenges and opportunities for

sector entities; and other stakeholders.

for Impact

action — deepening levels of inequality

The limited availability of public

1

and opportunity disparities, a lack of

funds is another impetus for pursuing

affordable housing near employment,

public-private partnerships that align and

Strategies for Regional

climate change, and the threat of

leverage resources from multiple sources

13Collaboration

natural disasters, among others — that

to tackle these pressing challenges and

transcend local jurisdictional boundar-

for seizing opportunities to plan, adapt,

ies and often can be addressed more

and build for a more sustainable future.

Moving Toward a Sustainable

effectively through regional approaches.

18Future: Three Models of

These problems also cut across tradi-

Regional Planning

Why Regional Planning?

tional policymaking silos, requiring

Regional planning aims to facilitate

collaboration among federal, state, and

collaboration among local governments

local governments; their various agencies

and foster cross-sector approaches

CONTINUED ON PAGE 3

Message from the

Assistant Secretary

This issue of Evidence Matters examines the many opportunities and challenges inherent to planning on a regional scale. It profiles communities that have joined together to think more holistically about their housing, transportation, environmental, and economic needs and goals as well as the processes they used to engage community members

and overcome disagreements. This issue also explores how the federal government,

through interagency efforts such as the Partnership for Sustainable Communities and

program offices such as HUD’s Office of Economic Resilience, uses grantmaking and

the dissemination of best practices to support and institutionalize regional planning.

In the Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R), we’re deeply aware of the

need to work across agencies, levels of government, and sectors to solve cross-cutting

problems. Our team members provided early assistance for the development of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities and helped create and sustain the White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities, a partnership among 14 federal agencies that works directly with local governments around the country to foster economic development and resilience and make existing federal funds stretch further.

Because PD&R supports policy development throughout HUD, we’ve been especially engaged in the agency’s recently completed Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, which will have important implications for regional planning. The rule, which clarifies obligations established in the Fair Housing Act of 1968, is a critical affirmation of HUD’s commitment to fair housing and equality of opportunity. The rule streamlines the planning process that communities use to set goals and analyze challenges to fair housing choice. It also provides tools to help communities use local and regional data in their assessments and encourages stakeholders to form partnerships to develop regional fair housing plans.

Housing markets are regional in nature, and the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule aims to equip communities with the data and overarching process to ensure that residents can access affordable, quality housing in neighborhoods of opportunity with access to employment and social connectedness — the types of communities that regional planning seeks to create. Indeed, the collection of HUD’s efforts to promote fair housing and economic and environmental resilience truly work hand in hand to give regions and metropolitan areas the tools needed for long-term, inclusive growth.

Yet, there is no question that working together regionally to address economic and environmental issues will continue to be a tremendous challenge for communities nationwide. Maintaining momentum for regional partnerships can be extremely difficult after the events that spur collaboration — whether a federal grant or a moment of crisis such as a natural disaster — recede into the past.

That is why learning from existing efforts is so important. The Partnership for Sustainable Communities and the Office of Economic Resilience, in partnership with their grantees, are building the body of evidence and research; through this community of practice, regional partnerships can share their results and help other communities recognize and seize opportunities to build resilience. Although regional planning must ultimately develop at the local level, these efforts demonstrate the important role the federal government can play in promoting innovation.

— Katherine M. O’Regan, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research

2

Editor’s Note

This issue of Evidence Matters discusses regional planning and how communities can collaborate successfully on important and connected challenges, especially those related to housing, transportation, and sustainability. In HUD’s 50 years as a federal agency, regional planning in the United States has evolved substantially, with more metropolitan and rural areas recognizing the benefits of partnership. Federal efforts have played a key role in this change, ranging from early programs such as the Section 701 Comprehensive Planning Assistance grants to today’s Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grants, managed by our Office of Economic Resilience. Throughout this issue, you’ll see the interplay of federal funding and assistance and local decisionmaking.

The lead article, “Partnerships and Planning for Impact,” presents an overview of the key concepts underpinning regional planning and of recent efforts to use regional planning to bolster economic and environmental resilience. The Research Spotlight piece, “Strategies for Regional Collaboration,” examines challenges and opportunities for implementing and evaluating regional partnerships. Finally, the In Practice article, “Moving Toward a Sustainable Future: Three Models of Regional Planning,” looks at how three regions — Northeast Ohio, Western North Carolina, and Puget Sound in Washington — have worked to address issues that exceed the reach of individual jurisdictions.

We hope this edition of Evidence Matters provides a helpful overview of this complex topic. Our next issue will focus on the many connections between housing and health. Please provide feedback on any of our issues at www.huduser.gov/forums.

— Rachelle Levitt, Director of Research Utilization Division CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

economic insecurity, and emerging chal-

Highlights

lenges of megaregional development…

n Regional planning facilitates collaboration among local governments and

environmental quality, transportation

fosters cross-sector approaches to regional challenges, creating a founda-

mobility, housing choice and affordabil-

tion to pursue equitable economic growth and sustainable development.

ity, and growth management.”2

n Bodies of literature on many topics of concern to regional planners, such as

Regions can be defined according to

affordable housing, transportation, climate change, and resilience, suggest

the geographic boundaries that cor-

that many of these challenges require solutions at the regional level.

respond to the issue being addressed,

n Other research attempts to assess the efficacy and impact of regional plan-

whether it be a commuting shed, a

ning, but these studies generally fall short of establishing causality in linking

housing market, or a river basin.3 U.S.

regional planning with particular outcomes.

regions vary widely in their land use

patterns and economies, from pre-

n A renewed federal push for multidimensional regional planning has resulted

dominantly rural to heavily urbanized,

in the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, which coordinates federal

and a region often contains a mix of

investments and policies in housing, development, transportation, and

both. Approximately 80 percent of the

environmental protection, guided by six “livability principles.”

U.S. population lives in metropolitan

areas, and 10 “megaregions” — inter-

to regional challenges, creating a

sustainability — meeting present needs

connected networks of regions that

foundation to pursue more equitable

without compromising future needs.1

encompass patterns of daily activity and

economic growth and sustainable devel-

Kathryn Foster, former director of

major systems such as transit, utilities, or

opment that improves opportunities and the University at Buffalo Regional

stormwater management — are expected

outcomes for current and future gen-

Institute, advances a wide-ranging list of

to absorb more than 70 percent of the

erations alike. Regional approaches

issues of concern to regional planners:

population growth projected by 2050.

traditionally have focused on managing

“[c]limate change, homeland security,

Interventions at these scales can have

growth. Increasingly, however, planners

public health, shrinking regions, broad-

an increased impact because they affect

are pursuing environmental protection

band access, economic globalization,

so many people.4 Similarly, because ap-

and social equity along with growth,

immigration influxes, obsolescent infra-

proximately 80 percent of the nation’s

guided by the bedrock principle of

structure systems, the suburbanization of

land area can be classified as rural,

3

regional approaches there can have a sig-

ecosystem may encompass hundreds

primarily toward transportation plan-

nificant impact over an expansive area.5

of these local jurisdictions. As Seltzer

ning, although they may also undertake

and Carbonell write, “[W]e are stuck

regional visioning and scenario plan-

Rural areas are crucial to addressing

between two clear and compelling notions:

ning.14 Both COGs and MPOs have been

issues such as food and energy security

on one hand the allegiance of individuals,

criticized for having a suburban bias;

and biodiversity that are also vitally im-

communities, economies, and cultures

because each local government has one

portant to people in urban and suburban to the jurisdictional status quo; and on

vote, the suburban governments tend to

areas.6 Rural areas face a diverse set of

the other the logic of better matching

outnumber the central/urban ones.15

problems and circumstances, but, as

planning and governance to the actual

Some organizations overcome this prob-

in metropolitan areas, climate change,

scale of activities.”8 Because regional

lem through a weighted voting structure

economic resilience, housing, jobs, and

boundaries vary according to the issue

based on population.16 A handful of

transportation are central concerns.

being addressed, the territory of re-

scholars have argued that the apparent

Even more so than in the sprawling

gional governmental entities often does

weakness of limited formal power can

suburbs of many metropolitan areas,

not match the area of concern for a par-

in fact be a strength. Montgomery, for

housing, jobs, and services in rural

ticular regional problem. For example,

example, suggests that independence

areas can be spread far apart, increasing

the relevant region for transportation

from the structures of government has

fostered greater “creativity, diversity,

and inclusiveness” than would other-

Effective regional approaches can bridge

wise have been possible, and Fishman

concludes that “American planning today

the needs of interdependent rural, subur-

is most effective and comprehensive

precisely when it eschews all-embracing

ban, and urban areas while addressing the powers and works instead within the

limits of the pluralistic systems that

challenges unique to each.

actually define the American-built

environment.”17 Though exceptional,

the need for transportation networks,

purposes might not correspond entirely

Envision Utah, a regional planning orga-

especially for households that cannot

with that for coastal resilience.9

nization in the Salt Lake City region, has

afford a car. Although small towns may

shown success despite having limited

lack the administrative capacity to serve

With a few exceptions — notably

formal power. In her evaluation of the

as de facto regional job and service

Oregon Metro and the Metropolitan

“Utah model,” Scheer points to years of

centers, this deficit can be overcome in

Council in Minnesota’s Minneapolis-St.

consensus building through collabora-

part by regional collaboration to pool

Paul region — regional governing enti-

tive planning, public engagement, and

resources.7 Effective regional approaches

ties have little real power; they lack the

education to explain the region’s trend

can bridge the needs of interdependent

authority to compel constituent actors to

toward greater density and transit-

rural, suburban, and urban areas while

adhere to plans, relying instead on vol-

oriented development.18

addressing the challenges unique to each.

untary participation.10 Research shows

that weak governing structures limit the

Perhaps the most vexing challenge for

Even though regional approaches make

effectiveness of regional planning to shape

a regional planning framework is to bal-

intuitive sense on many levels, several

outcomes such as development patterns.11

ance the central goals of environmental

factors work against forms of regional

The most common structures of regional

protection and preservation, economic

governance. Although transit systems,

governance are councils of government

growth, and equity.19 Although planners

housing markets, and ecosystems func-

(COGs) and metropolitan planning

are increasingly attentive to these com-

tion regionally, people experience

organizations (MPOs), which are typi-

peting priorities and actively attempt

these systems on a smaller scale — their

cally advisory associations composed

to resolve them, the underlying tension

commute, their home, and their neigh-

of local entities.12 COGs are voluntary

persists, says Karen Chapple, professor

borhood. Existing governing structures

associations of local governments often

of city and regional planning at the Uni-

are rarely coterminous with functional

established by state law; they can include

versity of California, Berkeley. Chapple

regions, covering geographies that are

Economic Development Districts, which

points to land preservation in areas

either too small (cities or even counties) or

have planning authority through the

that need land for affordable housing

too expansive (states) to effectively tackle

U.S. Department of Commerce’s

and growth policies that might displace

regional issues. Most of the land-use deci-

Economic Development Adminis-

residents in a tight rental market

sions that affect regional planning are

tration.13 MPOs, which were first

as examples of the ongoing challenge

made at the local level, yet the functional

established through the Federal-Aid

to reconcile these priorities.20 Competi-

boundaries of a regional economy or

Highway Act of 1962, are oriented

tion among local jurisdictions may also

4

impede cooperation at the regional level. segregation and increasing income

the economic benefits of regional plan-

Foster writes that regional entities seek

segregation, and the geography of

ning is difficult because so few powerful

greater equity in economic develop-

poverty has shifted, notably increas-

regional entities are available to study

ment and environmental sustainability

ing in suburban areas.23 The nature of

and because there is no consensus

by encouraging civic engagement and

these problems has led some scholars

measure of success to compare across

participation during planning pro-

and policymakers to conclude, as Pastor

regions. Ultimately, Jones concludes

cesses, but she acknowledges that even

and Benner put it, that “the remedies

that “[although] it seems reasonable

then, tradeoffs are inevitable.21

cannot be purely the inward-looking

to assume that good regional planning

asset building of traditional neighbor-

results in improved economic perfor-

The Research Basis for

hood development, but rather require

mance…hard evidence of this effect

Regional Planning

a broad attempt to change the rules

is scarce.”26 A handful of studies find

Bodies of literature exist on many top-

of the game via regional tax sharing,

a firm link between specific regional

ics concerning regional planners, such

fair-share housing requirements, and

programs and intended outcomes.

as affordable housing, climate change

improved public transit systems.”24

Research published in 2011 found that

and resilience, and intraregional equity.

the Minneapolis–St. Paul region’s tax-

In many cases, the research that estab-

Other research attempts to assess the

base sharing program reduced tax-base

lishes the existence of a regionwide

efficacy and impact of regional plan-

inequality among 7 counties and 192

challenge also suggests a regional solu-

ning, primarily through case studies

municipalities by about 20 percent.27 In

tion. There is considerable evidence,

and comparisons. These studies gener-

addition, research has found that Port-

for example, of intraregional disparities

ally fall short of establishing causality in

land Metro’s urban growth boundary, a

in resources and opportunity through-

linking regional planning with par-

mandatory regional planning program,

out the country, as summarized by

ticular outcomes. Knaap and Lewis,

has effectively shaped land-use patterns,

Pastor et al. “[H]ousing is segregated…

for instance, review six case studies in

confining development into designated

[and] issues of spatial mismatch still

regional planning — Portland; Denver;

areas and limiting sprawl.28 Beyond

limit opportunities to access viable

Sacramento; Chicago; Washington, DC;

these examples, however, few rigorous

employment. Some neighborhoods

and Salt Lake City — and find “in almost

studies of regional planning programs

are clearly places of choice; others

every case the evidence of successful

offer definitive evidence on whether

are saddled with high levels of toxic

influence on development patterns is

or how well particular programs are

contamination, dilapidated hous-

weak,” indicating that regional bodies

working, although both mandatory

ing, poor schools, and crime.”22 Recent

may require greater power for imple-

and voluntary planning programs have

studies show persistent levels of racial

mentation.25 Jones notes that assessing

demonstrated some level of success.29

Envision Utah

Envision Utah’s original Quality Growth Strategy called for the creation of more multimodal transit options, which led to more bus and rail transit, bike paths, and walkable centers along the Wasatch Front.

5

Chapple suggests that in addition to

areas with meaningful public transit

and services in rural areas.”35 The act

evaluating planning programs, taking a

options are best able to reduce house-

designated metropolitan and regional

broader look at the policies and market

hold transportation costs, and TOD

planning agencies as eligible grantees

dynamics that are already increasing

is a crucial mechanism for expanding

and urged planning that, as much as

sustainability, such as infill development

transportation choices regionwide. In

possible, “cover[ed] entire areas hav-

that preserves or increases density,

addition to increasing the use of public

ing common or related development

could yield evidence to inform more

transit, TOD reduces traffic and increases

problems.”36 These Section 701 plan-

deliberative planning approaches.30

physical activity, with concomitant

ning grants supported the coordination

environmental benefits.33

of transportation systems, consideration

Transit-oriented development (TOD)

of regional housing needs, and the

has shown promise as a strategy to address

Sustainable Communities

development of economic and natural

the central goals of regional planning.

Initiative Grants

resources and were “the primary mech-

TOD can reduce dependence on cars,

Building on the evidentiary basis for

anism through which HUD pursued its

thereby lowering greenhouse gas emis-

regional planning, HUD has renewed

policy of locating lower income housing

sions. TOD can also promote economic

its support for the regional and inte-

on a metropolitan-wide basis,” accord-

growth by connecting workers to jobs

grated planning approaches that were

ing to Marando.37 In its early years,

and creating clusters of economic

prominent at the department’s found-

HUD also took an integrated approach

activity. In addition, TOD that includes

ing but had since waned.34 As early as

to metropolitan problems, focusing

affordable housing can increase lower-

1954, HUD’s predecessor, the Housing

not only on housing but also a range of

income households’ access to schools,

and Home Finance Agency, awarded

interrelated urban issues. The Model

jobs, and other opportunities, result-

urban planning grants to regional and

Cities program, aimed at improving

ing in greater social equity. According

metropolitan entities under Section

housing, health, education, and job

to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’

701 of the Housing Act of 1954. The

opportunities in poor urban areas, was

Consumer Expenditure Survey, the

Housing and Community Development

emblematic of this approach, although

average household spent 51.2 percent

Act of 1968 reaffirmed and expanded

it was short lived.38

of its income on housing and transpor-

this authority, making HUD responsible

tation in 2013.31 Reductions in housing

for comprehensive planning to address

HUD’s multidisciplinary, metropoli-

and transportation costs can lead to

problems “resulting from the increas-

tan approach peaked during George

improved economic outcomes, particu-

ing concentration of population in

Romney’s tenure as HUD Secretary

larly among low- and moderate-income

metropolitan and other urban areas

from 1969 to 1973. Romney defined the

households, for whom these costs are

and the out-migration from and lack of

“Real City” as the entire metropolitan

especially burdensome.32 Metropolitan

coordinated development of resources

area, not just the fragmented jurisdic-

tions therein, and he pursued a more

equitable, regionwide distribution of

lower-income housing that accounted

for the increasing suburbanization of

employment and education opportuni-

ties.39 Under the “Open Communities”

initiative, HUD also sought to combat

racial exclusion from suburbs. Like the

Model Cities program, this initiative

was curtailed before it had a chance to

have much impact, ending in the early

1970s at President Nixon’s insistence.40

Later in the 1970s, the Areawide Hous-

ing Opportunity Plan and the Regional

Housing Mobility Program sought to

desegregate and deconcentrate feder-

ally assisted housing at the regional

level, but these short-lived programs,

along with Section 701 grants, came

to an end in the early 1980s.41 Charles

Orlebeke, former assistant secretary

Courtesy of RTD

of HUD’s Office of Policy Develop-

Regional transit systems, such as the Denver area’s Regional Transportation District (RTD) Eagle P3 project, lower greenhouse gas emissions and better connect low-income households to schools, jobs, and other amenities.

ment and Research, writes that the

6

and disseminate best practices from

early experiences. The HUD Exchange

website (www.hudexchange.info) hosts

the SCI Resource Library, a clearing-

house for relevant information, including

grantee planning documents, case studies,

and reports, that are organized by cat-

egory (such as climate and resilience),

and subtopic (such as green infrastruc-

ture).47 A 2015 report available from

the SCI Resource Library, “Green

Infrastructure and the Sustainable

Communities Initiative,” summarizes

some of the lessons learned though

Corvias Solutions

SCI about cost-effective infrastructure

Through the Clean Water Partnership, private-sector partner Corvias Solutions will install and maintain bioretention, stormwater detention, and other technologies to help Prince George’s County, Maryland meet its Clean Water Act obligations.

investments that enhance resilience

and sustainability. The report summa-

implementation of such planning efforts

regional plans and pursue collabora-

rizes 30 grantee projects and finds that

was hampered both within HUD and

tion and leveraging of other funding

green infrastructure is most effective

by local communities, where “regional

sources.44

when coordinated at a regional scale,

planning bodies lacked the institutional

when efforts to increase infrastructure

and political levers that had a chance of

A cornerstone effort of the Partner-

capacity are combined with efforts to

transforming a regional housing plan

ship for Sustainable Communities is

reduce usage, and when green infra-

into anything like reality.”42

the Sustainable Communities Initiative

structure investments are leveraged to

(SCI). Administered by HUD, SCI man-

gain other community benefits such

A renewed federal push for multidi-

ages two grant programs: Sustainable

as additional recreational space or

mensional, regional planning crystalized

Communities Regional Planning Grants

increased property values.48

in 2009, when HUD, the U.S. Environ-

and Community Challenge Planning

mental Protection Agency (EPA), and

Grants. The regional grants support

Looking at the range of SCI grantees’

the U.S. Department of Transportation

locally led efforts to foster regional

activities, Office of Economic Resilience

formed the Partnership for Sustainable

collaboration among diverse stakehold-

senior advisor Dwayne Marsh writes that

Communities to coordinate federal

ers to coordinate housing, workforce,

collective impact strategies have reaped

investments and policies in housing,

infrastructure, and economic develop-

benefits. Defined by Marsh as “build-

development, transportation, and en-

ment (see “Moving Toward a Sustainable

ing a common agenda, creating shared

vironmental protection, guided by six

Future: Three Models of Regional Plan-

measurement systems, identifying

“livability principles.” The six principles

ning,” p. 18). Since 2010, HUD has

mutually reinforcing activities, promot-

were to provide more transportation

awarded $165 million in Sustainable

ing continuous communications, and

choices; promote equitable, affordable

Communities Regional Planning Grants

supporting backbone organizations,” col-

housing; enhance economic competi-

to 74 regions. Community Challenge

lective impact strategies bring together

tiveness; support existing communities;

Planning Grants are more narrowly

various levels of government and public

coordinate and leverage investment;

targeted to corridor, neighborhood,

and private stakeholders.49 Identifying

and value communities and neighbor-

citywide, and station area planning. In

lessons learned thus far, Marsh notes

hoods. Through collaboration, the

two rounds of funding, 69 communi-

that grantees have found that they need

agencies seek to align and target federal

ties received Community Challenge

to integrate housing and transporta-

resources more efficiently.43 Similarly,

Planning Grants totaling $70 million.45

tion, stress economic resilience, include

the U.S. Department of Agriculture

A smaller, supporting grant program

workforce development, incorporate

(USDA) will promote regional plan-

jointly funded by HUD and EPA

traditionally underrepresented groups

ning and partnerships through its

awarded a total of $10 million in capac-

in planning, plan for equity, and align

recently announced Regional Develop-

ity building grants to 8 national and

diverse issues such as health and housing.50

ment Priority (RDP) policy. Under

regional intermediaries to provide SCI

RDP, multijurisdictional applicants

grantees with technical assistance.46

Consistent with the goals embedded

for USDA infrastructure and develop-

in the program’s design, grantees are

ment programs can receive priority

As grantees complete their plans and

seeking to leverage other public and

status based on the extent to which

begin to implement regional approaches

private investment. SCI grant programs

their proposals support existing

to various issues, HUD will identify

require that other sources match at

7

least 20 percent of the requested funds.

it can be easy to have the goals and

to engage underrepresented and disad-

In practice, most grantees have far

objectives of marginalized groups

vantaged groups throughout the planning

exceeded this threshold.51 From the

sublimated in the discussion.”58 Alex-

process.63 Chapple and Mattiuzzi found

143 SCI grants totaling nearly $240

ander argues that the most aggressive

that more than 60 percent of SCI grant

million in FY 2010 and 2011, grantees

responses to regional inequities might

applicants proposed two-way public par-

have leveraged more than $185 million

be excluded in the interest of bringing

ticipation strategies rather than one-way,

from private investment and local partners.

together a broad consortium, and

top-down engagement strategies such as

This investment included philanthropies

she suggests that participants must

public education.64

supporting grantees through the applica-

include structures to ensure that tradition-

tion process and businesses offering

ally marginalized groups have “real,

Although the extent to which such

in-kind staffing, training, and techni-

meaningful participation that leads to

participatory processes result in more

cal assistance.52 For example, the Twin

long-term outcomes that are good for

equitable outcomes remains to be

Cities region in Minnesota received a

that group.”59 Recipients of Sustainable

seen, the Partnership for Sustainable

$5 million Sustainable Communities

Communities Regional Planning Grants

Communities has developed a number

Regional Planning Grant and $8.9

were required to conduct a Fair Hous-

of tools to measure progress and evaluate

million from community partners and

ing Equity Assessment, and, although

sustainability programs. The Location

local governments along with $15.7

not in effect during SCI planning,

Affordability Index provides data on

million in grants and loans from Living

HUD’s recent Final Rule on Affirma-

combined housing and transporta-

Cities.53 Such leveraging not only increases

tively Furthering Fair Housing addresses tion costs for eight different household

the resources available for planning

concerns about intraregional equity

profiles for every census block group

and implementation but also increases

through its provisions to “encourage

nationwide, allowing policymakers to

stakeholder buy-in, says Marsh.54

and facilitate regional approaches to

evaluate how land use and transporta-

address fair housing issues.”60 Under

tion planning decisions can affect

Chapple and Mattiuzzi write that

the rule, HUD will provide regional

household budgets.65 The Sustainable

although it is too early to assess the full

data on integration, racial and ethnic

Communities HotReport is a web-based

impact of SCI, signs indicate that grant-

concentrations of poverty, and other

tool that pulls data from public sources

ees — and even applicants who were not

relevant conditions.61

on selected transportation, housing,

awarded funds — are building regional

equity, economic development, and

planning capacity, and many are incor-

income sustainability indicators for a

porating sustainability and social equity

The Partnership

locality, allowing residents and commu-

goals.55 Evidence suggests that SCI is

nity leaders to compare and measure

helping to break down traditional policy

for Sustainable

progress. Finally, the Sustainable Com-

silos. A review by Pendall et al. based

munity Indicator Catalog identifies

Communities has

on five case studies found that regional

a number of additional quantifiable

planning grantees have had some suc-

indicators that can be used to measure

developed a number

cess with de-siloing at the federal and

a community’s success in meeting sus-

regional levels through new collabora-

of tools to measure

tainability goals.66

tive structures, policies, and approaches

progress and eval-

to problems; however, “unclear federal

The second and final round of SCI

legislative commitment may undermine

grants was awarded in 2011, but their

uate sustainability

local de-siloing” if participants revert to

impact continues as grantees begin

old practices when these programs end.56

programs.

to implement plans forged under the

grant. As more stakeholders adopt

These successes notwithstanding,

a regional lens and new, successful

Chapple and Mattiuzzi conclude that

Marsh says that grantees have generally partnerships form, SCI will continue to

“it will take a more effective set of

done a good job of engaging a range

influence the way regions implement

carrots and sticks to foster a compre-

of stakeholders, including groups tradi-

sustainability projects. Marsh says that

hensive approach to development

tionally marginalized from mainstream SCI grant managers “tried to orient

— particularly to avoid making equity

planning processes, and that partici-

[grantees] toward thinking of these

an afterthought in sustainability plan-

pants now have concrete expectations

as the run-up toward implementation

ning.”57 Lisa Alexander of the University

about the results of planning efforts,

versus just doing a planning exercise.”

of Wisconsin Law School cautions that

which acts as an internal accountability He notes that several grantees built

“when you have public-private partner-

mechanism.62 The Bay Area Regional

implementation into their plans through

ships with lots of stakeholders with

Prosperity Plan, for example, included

demonstration projects. HUD’s ongo-

their own sets of incentives and goals,

an “Equity Collaborative” working group ing capacity-building efforts have

8

The Southeast Florida Regional Partnership brought together more than 200 stakeholders from 7 counties to collaborate on long-range planning for economic growth and climate resilience.

also focused on moving grantees into

program, the Transportation Invest-

Initiative, which was launched in July 2014,

the implementation phase.67 Chapple

ment Generating Economic Recovery

call on federal agencies to facilitate

observes that the SCI grant programs

(TIGER) Discretionary Grant Program,

infrastructure investment through

sparked an infusion of energy and

the Transportation Infrastructure

public-private partnerships that lever-

interest around regional planning,

Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)

age additional funding sources. The

creating an awareness that in at least

program, the Railroad Rehabilitation

Build America Transportation Invest-

some cases “seems to continue to reso-

and Improvement Financing program,

ment Center provides expertise and

nate well after the grant period is over.”68

and Private Activity Bonds — can

support to state and local governments

contribute to infrastructure and systems

that are partnering with private entities

Federal Initiatives on

development.69 Only some of these

to develop infrastructure and connects

Infrastructure and

programs explicitly incorporate or

these partners with existing federal

Systems Investment

conform to regional planning goals,

funding streams such as TIFIA. An

Common areas of concern for SCI

but all of them could be more fully

estimated $10 in loans, loan guarantees,

grantees, and regional planning entities

aligned with regional plans. Even fed-

and lines of credit can be leveraged for

generally, are infrastructure elements

eral programs such as HUD’s Housing

every $1 of TIFIA funding.72 To date,

such as highways, transit systems, and

Choice Voucher program can adopt a

public-private partnerships (PPPs) for

stormwater and sewer systems that typi-

regional approach. In one demonstra-

infrastructure development have been

cally correspond to a commute shed

tion program, eight Chicago-area public

concentrated in a handful of states; 20

or watershed rather than conforming

housing agencies have pooled resources

states had no PPPs as of July 2014, and

to jurisdictional boundaries. Aging

to facilitate mobility to high-opportunity

the 5 states with the highest number of

infrastructure needing maintenance,

neighborhoods.70 In addition, various

PPPs have nearly twice the amount of

population growth in remote areas, the

federal funding streams can be lever-

per-capita project value as the next 20

decline in public spending on infra-

aged together as demonstrated by the

states combined. The Build America

structure, and technology changes all

14 SCI community challenge grantees

Transportation Investment Center

contribute to an “infrastructure deficit”

for fiscal year 2010 who also received

seeks to share best practices from high-

in which the current condition and

TIGER Planning grants.71

performing states and broaden the impact

investment level in a region’s infra-

of PPPs nationwide.73 The Interagency

structure is out of step with present and

At current levels, these public funding

Infrastructure Finance Working Group,

future needs. Several federal financing

sources, although critical, are insuf-

a group co-chaired by the secretaries

programs — including the Community

ficient on their own. Federal initiatives

of the U.S. Departments of Treasury

Development Block Grant (CDBG)

such as the Build America Investment

and Transportation as part of the Build

9

Courtesy of RTD

Denver’s Union Station serves as a central hub to a regional transit system, connecting the city core with the surrounding suburbs.

America Initiative, distilled some of

Eagle P3, a regional transit infrastruc-

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says

those best practices into the following

ture project that will add 36 miles of

that EPA’s Water Infrastructure and Re-

recommendations:

electric commuter rail lines to the

siliency Finance Center, another part of

Denver metropolitan area, advances

the Build America Investment Initiative,

n increase resilience,

regional sustainability through a public-

can encourage innovative public-private

private partnership. The Regional

partnerships such as the Clean Water

n employ “dig once” coordination of

Transportation District of Denver

Partnership, an agreement between

infrastructure projects to maximize

has contracted with Denver Transit

Prince George’s County in Maryland

efficiency and minimize disruption,

Partners, a consortium of investors

and Corvias Solutions, a Rhode Island

and private-sector partners, to design,

firm. As part of the Chesapeake Bay

n increase predevelopment funding,

build, finance, operate, and maintain

watershed, Prince George’s County has

the system for 34 years. Financing for

an obligation under the Clean Water Act

n reform state laws to accommodate

the $2.2 billion project includes $1.1

to reduce stormwater runoff into the

public-private partnerships,

billion in federal funds and $450 mil-

bay. 77 Under the terms of the partner-

lion in private funds.75 Eagle P3 is now

ship, Corvias will design, retrofit, and

n improve permitting processes,

a focal point of regional planning for

maintain 2,000 previously untreated

sustainability. The Denver Regional

impervious acres over 3 years, with

n encourage pension fund investment,

Council of Governments received an

an option to increase this amount to

SCI planning grant to further develop

4,000 acres, and will provide long-term

n standardize PPP contracts,

its Metro Vision regional plan, which

maintenance over 30 years. To merge

will channel investment toward three

sustainability goals with economic

n share risks effectively, and

“catalytic projects” — one along each

development, the partnership will

of three transportation corridors. The

also employ local, small, and minority-

n bundle smaller projects to make

Metro Vision plan will also ensure that

owned businesses for at least 30 to 40

them more attractive to institutional

the region capitalizes on the potential

percent of the total project activities.

investors.74

benefits of TOD that will lower com-

The county will independently retrofit

bined transportation and housing costs,

impervious acres, offering an opportunity

connect residents of all income levels to

to evaluate and quantify the efficiencies

employment opportunities, and reduce

gained by the partnership.78

the consumption of fossil fuels.76

10

As the Clean Water Partnership demon-

Seven50: Southeast Florida Prosperity

require extensive collaboration among

strates, tremendous opportunity exists

Plan, for example, combines planning

all interested stakeholders. Public

for regional infrastructure investments

for regional climate and economic

resources alone will not adequately

to improve resilience to natural disas-

resiliency across a seven-county region.

support the investments necessary for

ters and climate change. At the federal

Led by the South Florida and Treasure

comprehensive infrastructure improve-

level, policies and initiatives such as the

Coast Regional Planning Councils and

ments, climate change adaptation and

Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy

the Southeast Regional Partnership, the

disaster resilience, and sustainable

and the Rebuild by Design competition

effort, which was supported by a 2010

housing development, among other ur-

are encouraging communities to adopt

Sustainable Communities Regional

gent needs. Federal policy in this area

regional approaches to climate and

Planning Grant, unites more than 200

is focused on trying to foster integrated

disaster-related challenges. Building on

stakeholders from the public and

approaches that cut across traditional

the success of Rebuild by Design, HUD

private sectors.81 Tools such as the

policy silos and facilitate partnerships.

launched the National Disaster Resil-

“equity profile” by PolicyLink and the

Public-private partnerships that most

ience Competition, which will award $1

University of Southern California’s Pro-

efficiently align and leverage various

billion in CDBG disaster recovery funds gram for Environmental and Regional

funding sources are vitally necessary

to communities developing resilient in-

Equity offer planners the information

to have a wide impact. Pursuing these

frastructure projects. The competition’s

they need to ensure that all southeast

goals equitably and sustainably will

stated objective is to identify opportuni-

Floridians, regardless of race, ethnic-

remain an ongoing challenge — one

ties for regional collaboration.79 Climate

ity, age, gender, or class, share in both

that will best be met through robust,

change mitigation is a responsibility of

the processes and positive outcomes

inclusive, representative civic participa-

policymakers at all levels of government,

of planning for the region. Among the

tion and rigorous research and evaluation

but decisions made at the regional level

relevant considerations in this regard,

to identify and disseminate the most

are particularly relevant. Every day,

researchers find that African Ameri-

promising practices.

localities make land use and infrastructure

can and Hispanic households have

decisions, with or without regional

driven much of the region’s recent

1 Ethan Seltzer and Armando Carbonell. 2011. “Plan-

ning Regions,” in Seltzer and Carbonell, 4; Karen

collaboration, that can either aggra-

and projected population growth

Chapple. 2015. Planning Sustainable Cities and Regions:

vate or mitigate climate change. For

and that income inequality as well as

Towards More Equitable Development, New York: Rout-

ledge, 24.

example, in communities that encour-

racial disparities in income and op-

2 Kathryn A. Foster. 2011. “A Region of One’s Own,”

age sprawl but lack sufficient public

portunity threaten the region’s future

in Regional Planning in America: Practice and Prospect,

Ethan Seltzer and Armando Carbonell, eds. Cam-

transit options, residents will become

prosperity.82

bridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 54.

3 Seltzer and Carbonell, 5.

4 Robert D. Yaro and David M. Kooris. 2008. “Growing

Greener Regions,” in Growing Greener Cities: Urban Sus-

tainability in the Twenty-first Century, Susan M.Wachter

At its best, regional planning can incorporate and Eugenie Ladner Birch, eds. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 29–30.

5

consideration of climate and disaster

Partnership for Sustainable Communities. 2011. “Sup-

porting Sustainable Rural Communities, ” 3.

6 T.H. Morrison, Marcus B. Lane, and Michael Hibbard.

resilience along with economic develop-

2014. “Planning, Governance and Rural Futures in

Australia and the USA: Revisiting the Case for Rural

ment and equity.

Regional Planning,” Journal of Environmental Planning

and Management, 1 .

7 Partnership for Sustainable Communities, 3–5.

8

more dependent on cars, which in turn

The Promise of Planning

Seltzer and Carbonell, 2.

9 Foster, 57.

will increase greenhouse gas emissions.

and Partnerships

10 Ibid., 62–3.

Conversely, communities that encour-

A compelling case can be made for

11 Gerrit-Jan Knaap and Rebecca Lewis. 2011. “Regional

age development with multimodal

adopting regional approaches to many

Planning for Sustainability and Hegemony of Met-

ropolitan Regionalism,” in Seltzer and Carbonell,

transit options will reduce those emissions.

of the pressing issues facing communi-

205–6.

Regional planning can also help preserve

ties across the country. More research is

12 Ibid., 178–9.

ecological resources such as forested

needed to understand which regional

13 Ibid.; 13 C.F.R. Ch. III, pts. 303, 304.

14 Knaap and Lewis, 180; Mike Walsh and Sarah Burch.

lands and limit development in flood-

planning structures, policies, and

“Communities at the Crossroads: Using MetroQuest

plains or coastal areas vulnerable to

practices work best and to evaluate the

to Help Communities Create Consensus Around

a Vision of the Future,” in The Future of Cities and

rising sea levels and storms.80

impact of federal funding and guidance

Regions: Simulation, Scenario and Visioning, Governance

such as SCI on planning processes and

and Scale, Liliana Bazzanella, Luca Caneparo, Franco

Corsico, and Giuseppe Roccasalva, eds. New York:

At its best, regional planning can

outcomes. Such research will become

Springer, 50.

incorporate consideration of climate

possible as more regional entities

15 Knaap and Lewis, 178–81.

and disaster resilience along with

implement plans. What is certain is that

16 David Y. Miller and Raymond W. Cox, III. 2014. Gov-

erning the Metropolitan Region: America’s New Frontier,

economic development and equity. The

both planning and implementation will

Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 188.

11

17 Carleton K. Montgomery. 2011. “Introduction,” in

37 Vincent L. Marando. 1975. “A Metropolitan Lower

60 Interview with Dwayne Marsh, 24 June 2015; U.S. De-

Regional Planning for a Sustainable America: How Creative

Income Housing Allocation Policy,” The American

partment of Housing and Urban Development. 2015.

Programs Are Promoting Prosperity and Saving the Environ-

Behavioral Scientist 19:1.

“Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” 5.

ment, Carleton K. Montgomery, ed. New Brunswick,

38 R. Allen Hays. 2012. The Federal Government & Urban

61 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1; Robert Fish-

Housing, 3rd Edition. Albany: SUNY Press, 184; Demonstra-

2015, 67.

man. 2000. “The Death and Life of American Regional

tion Cities and Metropolitan Development Act, 1966, Pub.L.,

62 Interview with Dwayne Marsh, 24 June 2015.

Planning,” in Reflections on Regionalism, Bruce Katz, ed.

89-754.

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 119.

63 Plan Bay Area 2040. “San Francisco Bay Area Re-

39 Marando.

gional Prosperity Plan Fact Sheet” (planbayarea.org/

18 Brenda Scheer. 2012. “The Utah Model: Lessons for

40

file10034.html). Accessed 17 July 2015.

Regional Planning, ” Brookings Mountain West.

Nikole Hannah-Jones. 2012. “Living Apart: How the

Government Betrayed a Landmark Civil Rights Law,”

64 Chapple and Mattiuzzi, 9.

19 Scott Campbell. 1996. “Green Cities, Growing Cities,

ProPublica.

Just Cities?: Urban Planning and the Contradictions

65 “Location Affordability Portal: Version 2,” U.S. Depart-

41

of Sustainable Development,” Journal of the American

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

ment of Housing and Urban Development website

Planning Association 62:3.

Office of Policy Development and Research. 1994.

(locationaffordability.info/about_lai.aspx). Accessed

“Residential Mobility Programs,” Urban Policy Brief; 29 June 2015.

20 Interview with Karen Chapple, 30 June 2015.

Arthur C. Nelson. 2006. “Leadership in a New Era,”

66 Eugenie L. Birch. 2015. “Measuring U.S. Sustainable

21 Foster, 77.

Journal of the American Planning Association 72:4, 393.

Development,” Cityscape 17:1, 227.

22 Manuel Pastor Jr., Chris Benner, and Martha Matsuo-

42 Charles J. Orlebeke. 2002. “Housing Policy and Urban

67 Interview with Dwayne Marsh, 24 June 2015.

ka. 2009. This Could Be the Start of Something Big: How

Sprawl in the Chicago Metropolitan Region,” in

Social Movements for Regional Equity are Reshaping Metro-

68 Interview with Karen Chapple.

Suburban Sprawl: Private Decisions and Public Policy, Wim

politan America, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 25.

Wiewel and Joseph J. Persky, eds. Armonk, NY: M.E.

69 Build America Investment Initiative Interagency

23 Sean F. Reardon, Lindsay Fox, and Joseph Townsend.

Sharpe, 165.

Working Group. n.d. “Recommendations of the Build

2015. “Neighborhood Income Composition by House-

America Investment Initiative Interagency Working

43 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

hold Race and Income, 1990–2009,” The ANNALS of

Group,” 2–4. “TIGER Discretionary Grants,” U.S. De-Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities.

the American Academy of Political and Social Science 660:1,

partment of Transportation website (www.transporta-

2012. “Helping Communities Realize a More Prosper-

78; Elizabeth Kneebone and Emily Garr. 2010. “The

tion.gov/tiger) Accessed 4 August 2015; “TIFIA,” U.S.

ous Future,” 5.

Suburbanization of Poverty: Trends in Metropolitan

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Ad-

44

America, 2000 to 2008. ” Metropolitan Policy Program

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015. “USDA to Give

ministration website (www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/).

at Brookings.

Priority Funding for Regional Economic Development

Accessed 4 August 2015; “Railroad Rehabilitation &

Projects,” 20 May press release.

Improvement Financing (RRIF),” U.S. Department

24 Manuel Pastor and Chris Benner. 2011. “Planning for

45

of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration

Equity, Fighting for Justice,” in Seltzer and Carbonell,

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

website (www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0128). Accessed 4

82.

ment, Office of Economic Resilience. 2015. “Green

Infrastructure and the Sustainable Communities Initia-

August 2015.

25 Knaap and Lewis, 205–6.

tive,” 3.

70 “Chicago Regional Housing Choice Initiative,” Housing

26 Christopher Jones. 2011. “The Economic Benefits of

46 Dwayne S. Marsh. 2014. “The Sustainable Communi-

Choice Partners website (www.hcp-chicago.org/2014/

Regional Planning,” in Montgomery, 268.

ties Initiative: Collective Impact in Practice,” Commu-

program/project-opportunity/). Accessed 1 July 2015.

27 Myron Orfield and Thomas Luce. 2011. “Promoting

nity Investments 26:1, 33.

71 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

Fiscal Equity and Efficient Development Practices at

47 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

ment. 2012. “Initial Report to Congress: Office of

the Metropolitan Scale,” in Montgomery, 285.

ment, Office of Economic Resilience. “SCI Resource

Sustainable Housing and Communities Sustainable

28 Carleton K. Montgomery. 2011. “Fulfilling the Promise

Library” (www.hudexchange.info/programs/sci/

Communities Grant Program Evaluation.”

of Regional Planning,” in Montgomery, 347.

resources). Accessed 19 June 2015.

72 The White House Office of the Press Secretary. “Fact

29 Ibid., 346.

48 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Sheet: Building a 21st Century Infrastructure: Increas-

30 Interview with Karen Chapple.

Office of Economic Resilience. 2015. “Green Infrastruc-

ing Public and Private Collaboration with the Build

America Investment Initiative,” 17 July press release.

31 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2015. “Consumer

ture and the Sustainable Communities Initiative,” 4.

Expenditures in 2013,” BLS Reports.

73

49 Marsh, 32.

Ibid.

32 Robert Hickey, Jeffrey Lubell, Peter Haas, and Stepha-

74

50 Ibid., 34–5.

Build America Investment Initiative Interagency Work-

nie Morse. 2012. “Losing Ground: The Struggle of

ing Group, 4–11.

51 Karen Chapple, and Elizabeth Mattiuzzi. 2013. “Plant-

Moderate-Income Households to Afford the Rising

75

ing the Seeds for a Sustainable Future: HUD’s Sustain-

“Eagle P3 Project,” Regional Transportation District of

Costs of Housing and Transportation, ” Center for able Communities Initiative Regional Planning Grant

Denver website (www.rtd-fastracks.com/ep3_2). Accessed Housing Policy and Center for Neighborhood Tech-Program,” Center for Community Innovation, 6.

30 June 2015; Regional Transportation District of Denver.

nology; Scott Bernstein, Carrie Makarewicz and Kevin

2015. “2015 Fact Sheet: Eagle P3 Project at a Glance.”

McCarty. 2005. “Driven to Spend: Pumping Dollars

52 Interview with Dwayne Marsh, 27 July 2015.

76 Denver Regional Council of Governments. n.d.

out of our Households and Communities, ” Center for 53 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

“Denver Region Sustainable Communities Regional

Neighborhood Technology and the Surface Transpor-

Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities.

Planning Grant Application: Exhibit 1,” 2.

tation Policy Project, 8.

2012. “Helping Communities Realize a More Prosper-

77 Prince George’s County Department of the Environ-

33 Bernstein, Makarewicz and McCarty, 8; Farjana Mosta-

ous Future,” 25.

ment. 2015. “White House and EPA Recognize

fiz Shatu and Md. Kamruzzaman. 2014. “Investigating

54 Interview with Dwayne Marsh, 24 June 2015.

County’s Stormwater Retrofit Public-Private Partner-

the Link between Transit Oriented Development and

55 Chapple and Mattiuzzi, 16.

ship (P3) Among Most Innovative in the Nation,”

Sustainable Travel Behavior in Brisbane: A Case-Con-

GreenScene (March/April), 3.

trol Study,” Journal of Sustainable Development 7:4; Ugo

56 Rolf Pendall, Sandra Rosenbloom, Diane Levy,

78

Lachapelle and Lawrence D. Frank. 2009. “Transit

Elizabeth Oo, Gerrit Knaap, Jason Sartori, and Arnab

Prince George’s County. 2015. “Clean Water Partner-

and Health: Mode of Transport, Employer-Sponsored

Chakraborty. 2013. “Can Federal Efforts Advance

ship: Frequently Asked Questions.”

Public Transit Pass Programs, and Physical Activity,”

Federal and Local De-Siloing?: Lessons from the HUD-

79 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Journal of Public Health Policy 30: Suppl. 1.

EPA-DOT Partnership for Sustainable Communities,”

2014. “National Disaster Resilience Competition.”

34 Chapple, 11; Alexander Hoffman, remarks at “Oppor-

Urban Institute, 15; 25–6.

80 Robert D. Yaro and David M. Kooris. 2011. “Regions

tunity in Urban America,” Urban Institute, Washing-

57 Chapple and Mattiuzzi, 16.

for Climate Resiliency,” in Montgomery, 253–60.

ton, DC, 15 June 2015.

58 Interview with Lisa T. Alexander, 26 June 2015.

81 “What Is Seven 50?” Seven 50. (seven50.org/plan/

35 Housing and Urban Development Act, 1968, Pub.L.

59 Ibid.; Lisa T. Alexander. 2011. “The Promise and Perils

what-is-seven50/). Accessed 17 June 2015.

90–448, Title VI, Section 601.

of ‘New Regionalist’ Approaches to Sustainable Com-

82 PolicyLink and PERE. 2014. “An Equity Profile of the

36 Ibid.

munities,” Fordham Urban Law Journal 38, 673.

Southeast Florida Region: Summary.”

12

Research Spotlight

Highlights

n Traditional regional thinking and planning focused largely on struc-

tural changes to address the challenges of providing public services.

Strategies

n Contemporary regional planning increasingly emphasizes forming

cooperative relationships among local governments and stakehold-

for Regional

ers to collaborate on complex challenges unconstrained by political,

Collaboration

geographical, racial, ethnic, and economic boundaries.

n Cross-jurisdictional planning and problem-solving places new

“In the end, local action over time is what

demands on local governments to develop the capacities necessary

actually ratifies regional plans and deter-

for successful collaborative governance.

mines their success or failure. ”1

In the United States, policymakers nation also has a long history of local Indianapolis and adjoining Marion and stakeholders are increasingly

jurisdictions gaining some degree of

County, with its 60 city, county, township,

reaching across local jurisdictional

regional planning authority through

and special-purpose governments,

boundaries to resolve common prob-

annexation or by expanding jurisdic-

were combined by state legislative action

lems in the provision of public services

tional boundaries in anticipation

into a single jurisdiction, UniGov.5 The

and to achieve shared goals.2 Thinking

of growth and larger tax bases. For

fact that the United States has seen only

regionally to address these issues is not

example, the population of Sugar Land,

40 such consolidations is attributed to

new, but it has differed in focus over

Texas, grew 150 percent from 1991 to

the enormous amount of time and en-

time. In 1909, architect and city plan-

2006 through a series of annexations

ergy necessary to manage the political

ner Daniel Burnham drafted the Plan

that has furthered development in the

challenges of implementation.6 These

of Chicago that extended beyond the

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown metro-

structural-change solutions fall under

city’s borders to include planning for

politan area.4

what some label “old regionalism,” in

the development of the surrounding

contrast with solutions that emphasize

region. This was one of the earliest in-

Attempts have also been made to

forming cooperative relationships

stances of regional planning in the U.S.

resolve common problems within a

to work on regionally shared mutual

and illustrates the city center-outward

region, such as fragmented governance,

interests, such as the regional tax-base

character of community planning early

with local government consolidations.

sharing program adopted by the Min-

in the twentieth century (fig. 1).3 The

In 1970, for example, the city of

neapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area.7

Figure 1. Major Waves of Regionalism in U.S. History

Early 20th Century

1960s – 1970s

1990s – Present

Planning strategy originated

Planning strategy originated

Planning strategy develops

from central city power and

at the top; federal policies

within voluntary cross-sector

extended outward to sur-

encouraged regional focus.

coalitions to tackle multi-

rounding area.

jurisdictional issues.

Source: Julie Cencula Olberding. 2002. “Diving Into the ‘Third Waves’ of Regional Governance and Economic Development Strategies: A Study of Regional Partnerships for Economic Development in U.S. Metropolitan Areas,” Economic Development Quarterly 16:3, 251–72.

13

Today, there is less public support

to meet federal funding requirements

The participants in multiorganizational

for using structural changes to local

and state mandates, many of these

and interlocal government networks

government to achieve cost reductions

groups have shifted their attention be-

vary with the task at hand. Each actor

and savings, broader tax bases, and

yond regional comprehensive planning

brings applicable interests, assets,

increased efficiency while delivering

to addressing members’ local service

knowledge, and skills to the table.

services, and evidence suggests these

delivery needs.11 ICMA reports that

Typical actors include local govern-

actions may not achieve the intended

in 2013, the issues most often at the

ments, chambers of commerce, local

outcomes or may have mixed results.8

top of the planning agenda for these

development corporations, utilities,

In its periodic surveys of local govern-

multijurisdictional organizations were

special districts, neighborhood as-

ments, the International City/County

roads and highways, economic develop-

sociations, foundations, and private

Management Association (ICMA) finds

ment, and public transit. Participation

industry councils.17 This “public policy

an increasing interest in addressing

in such regional planning organizations

decision making and management that

common issues and problems through

was greater in larger urban localities,

engage[s] people constructively across

interlocal and regional partnerships

such as metropolitan Denver, than in

the boundaries of public agencies, levels

and collaborations.9 In ICMA’s 2012

smaller, less-populated areas.12 Metro-

of government, and/or the public,

survey of local governments, city and

politan Denver’s Regional Council of

private and civic spheres in order to carry

county managers reported choosing

Governments consists of more than 50

out a public purpose that could not

to deliver at least some services col-

local city and county governments that

otherwise be accomplished” is broadly

laboratively to achieve better outcomes

work collaboratively on growth manage-

described as collaborative governance.18

(81%), leverage resources (84%), build

ment, transportation, traffic congestion,

relationships (77%), improve processes

and air and water quality issues of

The increasing reliance on multigov-

(69%), and because it’s “the right thing

concern throughout the region.13 By

ernmental, multijurisdictional, and

to do” (86%).10

contrast, the eCityGov Alliance, a smaller,

multisectoral approaches to challenges

regional initiative, makes government

places new demands on local govern-

In 2013, 8 out of 10 local governments

services and municipal amenities avail-

ments; the capacities required to

were participating in regional councils

able online to residents of nine cities

collaborate are quite different from

of governments, metropolitan planning

in Washington’s Puget Sound region.14

those needed to manage a single

organizations, or regional planning

Such intergovernmental collaboration

organization.19, 20 To help local juris-

agencies. Although initially established

is the most common form of partner-

dictions plan collaborative action, the

ship now used to plan and provide for

Enhanced Partnership of ICMA, along

public services.

with the Alliance for Innovation and

Figure 2. Requisites for

the Center for Urban Innovation at

Thinking and Acting

This trend toward regional thinking

Arizona State University, introduced an

and collaboration (fig. 2) corresponds

evidence-based Collaborative Services

Regionally

to the evolution of increasingly com-

Decision Matrix Tool in 2014. This tool

n

plex challenges that are unconstrained

is designed to help users determine

A compelling purpose, interest

by political, geographical, racial,

the assets, contract specification and

n Collaborative leadership

ethnic, and economic boundaries

monitoring requirements, labor, capi-

(see “Partnerships and Planning for

tal, costs, management competencies,

n Representation

Impact,” p. 3–4). Today’s immediate

and administrative stability needed for a

n

challenges to local communities and

collaborative effort. The tool also helps

Defined region

regions stem from the effects of the

stakeholders weigh community factors

n Necessary resources

Great Recession, demographic changes,

that could affect outcomes, such as

diminishing tax bases and revenues,

potential partners, council orientation

n Strategy of action

shrinking federal resources, new and

and political environment, fiscal and

greater demand for services, and the

economic health, unions, and public

n Implementation

expansion of metropolitan economic

interests. Grounded in a synthesis of

n Evaluation

regions that contain numerous local

the literature and case study research,

governmental entities, resulting in un-

the tool also offers a rough estimate of

n Governance

even and fragmented service delivery.15

the likelihood that a collaboration will

Contextual conditions such as these, in

be successful.21 The Enhanced Partnership

Source: Public Policy Research Institute at the

tandem with motivations such as those

contends that a comprehensive discussion

University of Montana, cited in U.S. Economic

named in the ICMA survey and other

of these factors allows the stakeholders

Administration. 2009. “Crossing the Next Regional

drivers, give rise to cross-jurisdictional

to understand the soft and hard costs

Frontier,” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Commerce.

collaboration.16

as well as the benefits involved in a plan

14

City and county governments work together on mutual issues of concern, including transportation, traffic congestion, emergency services, and air and water quality.

to deliver public services collaboratively.

coordination is necessary, among

governance of having participants

At the same time, the tool begins the

other factors. The guide identifies and

with political legitimacy, the authority

process through which relationships,

discusses 17 regional collaboration

to back policies, and respect for local

mutual trust, and a capacity to problem-

options ranging from easy to difficult

jurisdictional decisions on policies with

solve together grow.22

to implement (table 1).23

local impact. Also important to the

process is “developed authority,” which

Similarly, the National League of Cities

As local leaders decide to collaborate

can emerge from the synergy of all the

and the Alliance for Regional Steward-

across jurisdictional boundaries, says

elements of collaboration —“profes-

ship provide an evidence-based guide

Brookings Institution Visiting Fellow and

sional staff, ample expertise, high social

to help local officials who, through

regional governance expert Kathryn Fos-

capital with public entities, and policy

collaboration, are “[seeking] cost sav-

ter, they face three big questions about

sway resting in the persuasive powers of

ings and new efficiencies…[as well as]

the authority to plan and implement,

agency leaders and board members.”24

improving service delivery, achieving

how planning will be implemented and

social equity, empowering disaffected

by whom, and in what territory. Because Feedback from local government

groups, and addressing regional-scale

these relationships do not depend on le-

officials about their experiences with

problems more successfully.” When

gal authority to ensure that the goals are

collaboration emphasizes the impor-

deciding whether to deliver a service

met, collaborative arrangements must

tance of thinking regionally, building

directly or through regional collabo-

rely on other forces and skills to create

on existing relationships, being as

ration, local leaders are counseled to

the cohesion necessary to achieve objec-

inclusive as possible, involving the right

choose regionalism when economies of

tives — that is, there must be a transition

partners with the needed expertise or

scale can be achieved, when spillover

from government to governance. Foster

authority, and being flexible.25 Members

is big, or when cross-jurisdictional

points to the importance in regional

of an expert panel of practitioners

15

consulted by the State and Local Govern-

with outcomes from other forms of

ment Review about interlocal collaboration

governance. By identifying the most

Stakeholders must

also stressed the importance of preexist-

frequent and common findings from

ing relationships. In addition to the

understand the

the sample of collaboration cases, these

trust and confidence that are built over

scholars found four types of variables

soft and hard costs

time in relationships, the transaction

frequently discussed in their sample of

costs are lower if there is mutual recog-

studies: starting conditions, institutional

as well as the ben-

nition of problems and of opportunities

design, leadership, and the collaborative

to work together, as one panel member

efits involved in

process. The overarching conclusion of

noted. Transaction costs rise with the

this meta-analysis was that the success of

need to convince and persuade an

a plan to deliver

collaborative governance depends on

organization to collaborate.26

adequate time for the process as well as

public services

on trust and interdependence among

Whether governmental collaborations

the participants. 28

collaboratively.

and partnerships can be deemed suc-

cessful requires careful study. Success

A focus among case studies on the

stories are commonly reported, but

such as solid waste management, in

complex collaborative process may in

failed experiments are mentioned

which economies of scale permitted

itself be significant because it is both

less often. More research that extends

reduced service costs, although this

hard to do and “inherently fragile.”29

beyond case studies is needed (see

finding might be of greater benefit to

The diversity of needs, skills, and inter-

“Partnerships and Planning for Impact,”

smaller municipalities than to larger

ests brought to collaboration requires

p. 5). Reviews and analyses of case study

ones. Bel and Warner also noted that

whatever time and synergy it takes

literature reveal a large emphasis on

the transaction costs of collaborative

to construct a space in which mutual

the collaborative process itself, rather

governance were likely to rise with the

understandings and commitments

than policy or management outcomes,

number of actors involved.27 In another

are reached, thus producing public

although some studies do have this fo-

analysis of a diverse set of 137 case stud-

value. It is this product, McGuire et al.

cus. Bel and Warner analyzed available

ies of collaborative governance, Ansell

propose, that should be viewed “not

research on cost savings from intermu-

and Gash discovered a lack of common

simply a means to an end, but as an end

nicipal cooperation for service delivery

language, missing data, very few evalua-

[in] itself.”30 As these hypotheses are

and found a few instances of services,

tions of outcomes, and no comparisons

tested and research and experience

Table 1. Collaborative Options for Local Government: Easier to Harder

Easier to Implement

Harder to Implement

1. Informal Cooperation

10. Local Special Districts

2. Interlocal Service Contracts

11. Transfer of Functions

3. Joint Powers Agreements

12. Annexation

4. Extraterritorial Powers

13. Special Districts and Authorities

5. Councils of Government

14. Metro Multipurpose Districts

6. Federally Encouraged Single-Purpose

15. Reformed Urban County

Regional Bodies

7. State Planning and Development Districts

16. Regional Asset Districts

8. Contracting

17. Merger/Consolidation

9. Regional Purchasing Agreements

Source: John Parr, Joan Riem, and Christiana McFarland. 2006. Guide to Successful Local Government Collaboration in America’s Regions, Washington, DC: National League of Cities.

16

Also notable, the DRCOG provides resources for its

member governments through technical assistance,

high-quality digital aerial photography services to help

with mapping and planning, training, centralized

firefighter testing, elevator/escalator safety inspection,

and aging services for the metropolitan area’s elderly

residents.

14 David Swindell and Cheryl Hilvert. 2014. “Contem-

plating Collaboration.” PM Magazine (August) (www.

icma.org/en/press/pm_magazine/article/104725).

Accessed 15 September 2015; eCityGov Alliance.

2014. “About Us” (www.ecitygov.net/Pages/Services.

aspx) Accessed 15 September 2015.

15 Michael Abels. 2014. Strategic Alignment for the

New Normal: Collaboration, Sustainability, and

Deliberation in Local Government Across Boundar-

ies,” State and Local Government Review 46:3, 211–18;

Government Finance Officers Association. 2007.

“Alternative Service Delivery: Shared Services.”

16 Kirk Emerson, Tina Nabatchi, and Stephen Balogh.

2012. “An Integrative Framework for Collaborative

Governance,” Journal of Public Administration Research

and Theory 22:1, 1–30.

17 Robert Agranoff and Michael McGuire. 1998. “Multi-

network Management: Collaboration and the Hollow

State in Local Economic Policy,” Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory 8:1, 67–91.

18 Emerson et al.

19 Michael Abels. 2012. “Managing through Collabora-

tive Networks: A Twenty-First Century Mandate for

Local Government,” State and Local Government Review

44:S, 30S–43S; Kathryn A. Foster. 2010. “Challenges

ahead for US regional planning governance,” Town

Planning Review 81:5, 485–503.

Public transit is one the highest priorities on the planning agendas of multijurisdictional organizations.

20 Robert Agranoff and Michael McGuire. 1998. “Multi-

network Management: Collaboration and the Hollow

State in Local Economic Policy,” Journal of Public

with regionalism and collaborative

list-of-consolidated-city-county-governments). Accessed

Administration Research and Theory 8:1, 67–91; Robert

19 October 2015.

Agranoff and Michael McGuire. 2003. Collaborative

governance accrue, what constitutes a

7 Lisa Benton-Short. 2014. Cities of North America: Contem-

Public Management: New Strategies for Local Govern-

successful arrangement for delivering

porary Challenge in U.S. and Canadian Cities, Lanham,

ments, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

particular services in unique local

MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 184–91.

21 Enhanced Partnership of the ICMA, the Alliance

8 See Stephen Calabrese, Glenn Cassidy, and Dennis

for Innovation, and the Center for Urban Innova-

conditions and how to weigh the ac-

Epple. 2002. “Local Government Fiscal Structure and

tion at Arizona State University. 2014. “The Col-

tual costs and benefits of collaboration

Metropolitan Consolidation,” Project Muse, Brookings-

laborative Service Delivery Matrix: A Decision Tool

to Assist Local Governments,” “A Summary of the

will become increasingly clear.

Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs; Joseph N. Heiney.

2012. “Can State & Local Government Consolidation

Research Behind the Decision Matrix Tool,” and

Really Save Money?” Journal of Business & Economics

“Bibliographic Resources on Collaborative Service

1 Ethan Seltzer and Armando Carbonell. 2011. “Re-

Research 10:10, 539–46; Joseph Martin and Eric A.

Delivery Arrangements” (icma.org/en/results/

gional Practice, Regional Prospect,” in Regional Plan-

Scorsone. 2011. “Cost Ramifications of Municipal Con-

management_strategies/resources/documents_

ning in America: Practice and Prospect, Ethan Seltzer and

solidation: A Comparative Analysis,” Journal of Public

articles#collaborative-service-delivery). Accessed 19

Armando Carbonell, eds. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management 23:3,

October 2015.

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 269.

311–37; Frank Gamrat and Jake Haulk. 2005. “Merging

22 Swindell and Hilvert 2014.

Governments: Lessons from Louisville, Indianapolis,

2 William R. Barnes and Kathryn A. Foster. 2012. “To-

23 Parr et al.

ward a More Useful Way of Understanding Regional

and Philadelphia,” Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Allegheny

24 Kathryn A. Foster 2010, 499.

Governance,” paper presented at conference of the

Institute for Public Policy.

25 Parr et al. 47–52.

European Urban Research Association, Vienna, Austria.

9 Cheryl Hilvert and David Swindell. 2013. “Collabora-

26 Bruce J. Perlman. 2015. “Trust and Timing: The

3 M.J. Breheny and P.W.J. Batey. 1981. “The History of

tive Service Delivery: What Every Local Government

Importance of Relationship and Opportunity for

Planning Methodology: A Preliminary Sketch,” Built

Manager Should Know,” State and Local Government

Interlocal Collaboration and Agreements,” State and

Environment 7:2, 111–14 ; Greg Hise. 2009 . “ Whither

Review 45:4, 242.

Local Government Review 47:2, 116–26.

the Region? Periods and Periodicity in Planning His-

10 Ibid., 245.

tory ,” Journal of Planning History 8:4, 295–307 .

27

11 National League of Cities. 2012. “Metropolitan Coun-

Germà Bel and Mildred E. Warner. 2015. “Inter-

municipal cooperation and costs: Expectations and

4 John Parr, Joan Riem, and Christiana McFarland. 2006.

cils” (nlc.org/build-skills-and-networks/resources/cit-

Guide to Successful Local Government Collaboration in

ies-101/city-powers/metropolitan-councils). Accessed evidence,” Public Administration 93:1, 52–67.

America’s Regions. Washington, DC: National League of

19 October 2015.

28 Chris Ansell and Alison Gash. 2007. “Collaborative

Cities, 27–8.

12 International City/County Management Association.

Governance in Theory and Practice,” Journal of Public

5 Jeff Wachter. 2014. “40 Years After Unigov: Indianapo-

2013. “Regional Solutions to Regional Problems”

Administration Research and Theory 18, 43–71.

lis and Marion County’s Experience With Consolidated

(transformgov.org/en/Article/103634/Regional_So-

29 Ann Marie Thomson and James L. Perry. 2006. “Col-

Government,” Baltimore, Maryland: the Abell Founda-

lutions_to_Regional_Problems). Accessed 14 Septem-

laboration Processes: Inside the Black Box,” Public Ad-

tion (www.cgr.org/consensuscny/docs/CaseStudies_

ber 2015.

ministration Review (Special Issue: December), 20–32.

ec-unigov514.pdf). Accessed 19 October.

13 Denver Regional Council of Governments. 2009.

30 Michael McGuire, Robert Agranoff, and Chris Silvia.

6 National League of Cities. 2013. “List of Consolidated

“With One Voice” (transformgov.org/en/knowl-

2011. “Putting the ‘Public’ Back into Collaborative

City-County Governments” (www.nlc.org/build-skills-

edge_ network/documents/kn/Document/305307/

Public Management,” paper presented at the Public Man-

and-networks/resources/cities-101/city-structures/

With_One_Voice) Accessed 14 September 2015;

agement Research Conference, Syracuse, NY, 1-4 June.

17

In Practice

Highlights

n The Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium, a coalition of

Moving Toward

local governments, metropolitan planning organizations, and nonprofit ad-

a Sustainable

vocacy groups, produced a regional plan for the 12-county Northeast Ohio

region. Their Vibrant NEO 2040 plan encourages greater integration of

Future: Three

Northeast Ohio’s employment centers through inclusive economic and land

Models of Regional use policies and a cohesive transportation plan.

Planning

n The Land of Sky Regional Council in Western North Carolina is working with

a consortium of governments, businesses, and nonprofits called GroWNC

to balance expected population growth with the region’s existing natural

assets by promoting smart infrastructure investments, diverse economic

R egional planning seeks to inte-

development strategies, and farmland and environmental preservation.

grate the policies of neighboring

n Washington’s Puget Sound Regional Council launched the Growing Transit

communities to address issues that

Communities planning initiative to support equitable and efficient transit-

exceed the purview of a single jurisdic-

oriented development in its growing region.

tion, such as transportation systems,

housing markets, and natural ecosys-

tems. The ability of a community to

Changing the Trajectory

into a fiscal no-win situation, forced to

collaborate successfully across jurisdic-

of Northeast Ohio

either raise taxes or cut services to pay

tional boundaries to plan for change

The northeast corner of Ohio has faced

for their increasing financial obligations.

influences not only its economic

years of economic decline and popula-

NEOSCC measured fiscal health as the

competitiveness but also its residents’

tion loss. Where growth does occur,

ratio of tax revenue to government

quality of life and access to opportunities.

it is typically on undeveloped land in

spending on infrastructure and services.

Through the Sustainable Communities

suburban and exurban communities

The region, which has a mix of counties

Regional Planning Grant program,

that absorb residents from legacy cities.

with positive and negative ratios, has

HUD supported the voluntary coordina-

This population movement contributes

an overall ratio of –0.3, meaning that

tion of long-term housing, land use,

to disinvestment in legacy cities; places

spending slightly outweighs revenues.

economic development, and infrastruc-

Northeast Ohio’s natural resources in

By 2040, however, NEOSCC projects that

ture decisions by local jurisdictions and

jeopardy; and enervates the fiscal health

every county in Northeast Ohio will have a

planning agencies to address regional

of cities, counties, and the region.2 To

negative ratio and the region will have

challenges (see “Partnerships and

reverse this trend, a coalition of local

an overall ratio of –33.7. Furthermore,

Planning for Impact,” p. 1).1 This article

governments, metropolitan planning

the financial situation of the healthiest

examines three regions — Northeast

organizations, and nonprofit advocacy

county in 2040 will be worse than that of

Ohio, Western North Carolina, and Puget

groups launched the Northeast Ohio

the sickest county in 2010.4

Sound in Washington — that received

Sustainable Communities Consortium

Sustainable Communities Regional

(NEOSCC), which crafted a coordinated

Northeast Ohio’s declining fiscal health

Planning Grants. In each example,

approach to land use, transportation,

is driven by two interrelated and com-

a lead grant applicant brought to-

and housing policy for the 12-county re-

pounding forces: the region’s overall loss

gether local stakeholders, including

gion. Using a $4.25 million Sustainable

of population and jobs and the move-

underserved or historically marginal-

Communities Regional Planning Grant,

ment of people and jobs from central

ized groups, to systematically study

NEOSCC produced Vibrant NEO 2040,

cities to suburban and exurban commu-

the current conditions of the shared

a vision and framework that encourage

nities. The region’s population was 3.8

region and develop a long-term vision

greater integration of Northeast Ohio’s

million in 2010, 7 percent lower than its

and policy framework that integrates

employment centers (the cities of Cleve-

1970s peak and well below the 5 to 6 mil-

the needs of all residents and commu-

land, Akron, Canton, and Youngstown)

lion that demographers once predicted

nities. Although crafted to serve the

through inclusive economic and land use

would live in the region.5 As the region’s

unique circumstances of a particular

policies and a cohesive transportation plan.3 population declined, the average num-

region, each framework promotes eco-

ber of residents per acre decreased from

nomic development, creating a range

Northeast Ohio’s

5.43 to 4.18 between 1979 and 2006.

of transportation options, focusing

Structural Challenges

During the same period, 4 to 5 percent

new development in existing com-

NEOSCC predicts that continuing

of undeveloped land was developed,

munities, and preserving ecologically

current development policies would

increasing the region’s footprint.6 Bethia

important areas.

force all 12 counties in Northeast Ohio

Burke, director of grants and emerging

18

initiatives at Fund for Our Economic Fu-

communities. NEOSCC’s view is that

game that challenged residents to build

ture, the organization that paid for the

“a shared vision for Northeast Ohio’s

their preferred future.12 Scenario plan-

initial grant work to create the consor-

future developed through a robust

ning extrapolates possible futures given

tium, identifies this pattern as “growth

engagement process can give communi-

current conditions, a set of growth

without growth.”7 The region now has

ties a reason to align their planning and

assumptions, and different policy objec-

more housing, roads, sewer lines, busi-

resource allocation decisions to build

tives. These tools serve the dual purpose

nesses, and office buildings despite the

a healthier, more economically and

of providing information to residents in

falling population.8 NEOSCC found

socially equitable region.”10

a digestible format and making it easier

that “funds available for transportation

for residents to comment on regional

infrastructure construction and main-

This robust engagement process was

values and preferred development

tenance are declining,” meaning that

predicated on building widespread

alternatives.13 Wright reports that nearly

local governments will need to either raise community support, explains Fred-

6,000 residents participated in crafting

taxes to meet their maintenance responsi-

erick Wright, chief executive officer

the regional vision.14

bilities or allow their roads to deteriorate.9 of Akron’s Urban League and chair

of NEOSCC’s Communication and

NEOSCC first tested a business-as-usual

Modeling What the

Outreach workgroup. Because some

or Trend scenario, which assumed that

Future Holds

residents had reservations about region-

migration patterns and job creation will

NEOSCC does not have the power to

alism, Wright says, NEOSCC focused on

remain constant and jurisdictions will

compel jurisdictions to implement its

explaining the benefits of aligning local

continue their current development

recommendations; instead, it relies on

goals and stressed the voluntary nature

policies. Under the Trend scenario,

its ability to persuade. The organization

of the recommendations to assuage

NEOSCC found that abandonment will

operates as a forum for local officials

fears.11 NEOSCC held scenario-planning

not only increase in Northeast Ohio’s

and stakeholders to discuss and debate

workshops in all 12 counties and

four main cities but will also spread

ideas that they can take back to their

launched ImagineMyNEO, an online

to smaller towns and first-ring suburban

NEOSCC’s Regional Vision calls for stitching together Northeast Ohio’s communities by increasing transit connections and prioritizing investment in urban areas.

19

The Warehouse District in downtown Cleveland has seen increased investment in recent years, resulting in new residents, businesses, restaurants, and entertainment.

communities such as Ashtabula, Alliance,

of prime farmland. Residents would

The Vibrant NEO

and Massillon. Currently, 86,000 aban-

also have more transportation op-

Framework

doned homes are in the region, a number

tions, with 50 percent of jobs and 35

NEOSCC did not see its role as decid-

projected to grow to 175,000 by 2040.15

percent of residents located near transit

ing on a precise “plan” for the region’s

(compared with 41 percent and 25

future; rather, it facilitated a coherent

Believing that the outcomes of the

percent, respectively, under the Trend

regional vision that local governments

Trend scenario are unsustainable,

scenario). Most important, the region’s

and stakeholders could voluntarily imple-

NEOSCC tested three alternative

fiscal outlook, as measured by the ratio

ment. Residents of Northeast Ohio said

scenarios to determine the effect of

of the cost of government services and

that they aspire to build a region that is

different policy considerations. The

infrastructure to tax revenue, would

“competitive, growing, and fair.”20 Ac-

scenarios considered what would hap-

improve from its current –0.3 to 10.4.17

cording to Hunter Morrison, executive

pen if population and employment

director of NEOSCC, “What we heard

growth remained constant but local

After testing the growth scenarios,

broadly is that people wanted to do

government implemented the Vibrant

which assumed 875,000 new residents

things differently. People want more

NEO framework ( Do Things Differently),

and 500,000 new jobs, NEOSCC found

choices: more housing choices, more

population and employment growth

that Northeast Ohio cannot simply

transportation choices, a clean environ-

improved but jurisdictions made no

hope that new development will ease

ment, and good jobs.”21 Vibrant NEO

policy changes ( Grow the Same), and

its fiscal difficulties.18 Under the Grow

promotes choice and a competitive re-

growth improved and Vibrant NEO

the Same scenario, the region would

gion and supports existing communities

was implemented ( Grow Differently).16

have a negative cost-to-revenue ratio

by renewing investment, increasing trans-

of –6.4, and rural and sparsely devel-

portation options within and between

Implementing the framework would

oped communities, which currently

cities, preserving natural areas, and pro-

have a significant and positive impact

pay the least for public services, would

moting local government collaboration.22

on Northeast Ohio. Do Things Differently

see the worst future fiscal outcomes.

would double the amount of parkland

Growing Differently, however, would be

The Vibrant NEO framework is a col-

conserved, reduce lane miles by 77 per-

a boon to the region. Its cost-to-revenue

lection of 9 recommendations and 41

cent, lead to 155,000 fewer abandoned

ratio would be 13.8, and more than

initiatives to realign infrastructure,

homes, and consume 82 percent fewer

half of the region’s jobs would be located

housing, and land use incentives to

acres of land and 84 percent fewer acres

near transit.19

promote long-term economic growth.23

20

The framework created a “menu of

when people ask you to help them do

region’s situation to that of a boat with

initiatives that local governments can

something they want.” For example,

a hole at one end, letting in water. For

decide to implement,” says Grace Gal-

Romancak and his staff are working

years, the hole was seen as only the

lucci, chair of NEOSCC and executive

with three cities and their mainstreet

problem of the people getting wet. But

director of the Northeast Ohio Area-

organizations to identify strategies from

that leak, which is worsening, threatens

wide Coordinating Agency (NOACA),

the Vibrant NEO toolbox that will help

to sink everyone. Vibrant NEO is work-

a metropolitan planning organization

create and maintain an “active and

ing to change the atmosphere in which

and the lead applicant responsible for

robust downtown.”28

decisions are made, marking the first

tracking NEOSCC’s Sustainable Com-

step of a larger conversation to improve

munities Regional Planning Grant.24

Vibrant NEO empowered local officials

the trajectory of Northeast Ohio.

Some of the initiatives include developing

and residents to discuss regionalism

a regional network of job centers con-

and sustainability in a way that was

Preserving Western

nected by multimodal transportation,

previously difficult, says Gallucci. She

North Carolina’s

remediating and redeveloping aban-

contends that convening such a diverse

Distinct Character

doned parcels, encouraging more

group of stakeholders to talk about

Land of Sky in Western North Carolina,

mixed-use development, and preserving

the region’s problems and then achiev-

a rural region of forests, farmland, and

natural areas for future generations.25

ing a consensus on a vision was a huge

small towns nestled between the Blue

Burke notes that these strategies are

accomplishment. Seventy-four percent

Ridge and Great Smoky mountain

mutually reinforcing: “If you don’t pri-

of NEOSCC survey respondents said

ranges, expects to add 176,000 new

oritize urban infill, you lose the green

that their future depended on the eco-

residents over the next 30 years – an

space. If you don’t prioritize the green

nomic success of the region.29 Although

amount equivalent to twice the size of

space, it becomes difficult to find the

Northeast Ohio and its communities

the region’s current largest city. The

funding to do infill.”26

face daunting challenges, the ubiquity

Land of Sky Regional Council (LOSRC),

of those challenges may help build a

a planning body with representatives

Outcomes and

cohesive region. Wright compares the

from 4 counties and 15 municipalities,

Implementation

Morrison identifies the conditions

and trends data, scenario mapping, and

development strategies as significant

outcomes of Vibrant NEO. “What

we’ve collected,” Morrison says, “is a

rich and robust set of pilots and best

practices that other communities can

learn from.”27 NEOSCC also created a

regionwide land use map and a zon-

ing map by aggregating and digitizing

information from every jurisdiction in

Northeast Ohio. Such tools and digital

information are important to local com-

munities because they allow officials to

understand what would happen if “we

just let things go on autopilot,” says

Donald Romancak, the community

development director of Lorain County.

Romancak explains that NOACA and

NEOSCC broke out the county-specific

data for Lorain, which is helping the

county’s towns and cities determine

how to balance development pressure

while preserving their identity. “We

are working with our local communi-

ties, talking to them about different

possibilities. We’re not just out there

preaching [that] we’ve got to change.…

Jonathon Austin

GroWNC calls for expanding small-scale wind farms in rural areas such as Madison County’s Wind for

[I]t’s a lot easier to accomplish things

Schools project, which installed three wind turbines in local schools.

21

Carrie Turner

Farming is a pillar of the Western North Carolina economy, but the amount of farmland has shrunk over the past 50 years.

predicts that this rapid growth could

economy — many people come to en-

workshops, online forums, and surveys.

jeopardize the natural assets and rural

joy the region’s biodiversity and unique

Residents and local business owners

communities that make the area at-

microclimates.35

were placed in leadership roles. A major

tractive and drive important economic

component of GroWNC’s outreach

sectors.30 With a $1.6 million Sustain-

Hembree explains that “growth issues

and analysis was scenario planning.

able Communities Regional Planning

and sustainability need to be a major

Unlike Vibrant NEO, which tested

Grant, LOSRC gathered a consortium

factor, because if we are not able to

different growth assumptions for two

of 2 counties; 9 municipalities; 8 state

sustain and protect our natural environ-

policy frameworks, LOSRC’s scenario

and local agencies; and 52 nonprofits,

ment, we are going to lose out in terms

planning assumed consistent job and

businesses, and trade groups to develop

of fueling our economic engines.”36

population growth and tested four

GroWNC, a voluntary policy framework

Over the past few decades, some of the

development frameworks — Business

that promotes smart infrastructure

area’s assets have become threatened.

as Usual, Economic Prosperity, Resource

investments, diverse economic devel-

For example, the percentage of farmland

Conservation, and Efficient Growth — to

opment strategies, and farmland and

under cultivation fell from 50 percent of

help residents understand policy

environmental preservation.31

the region in 1950 to 16 percent in 2007. tradeoffs. LOSRC also created an

LOSRC attributes this decline in part to online mapping program, GroWNC

Challenge and Opportunity the limited amount of buildable land;

MapViewer, which allowed residents to

LOSRC predicts that 630,000 people

the mountainous topography of the

visualize current conditions, change

will call Land of Sky home by 2040, a

region often forces new development

over time, and the outcomes of the

40 percent increase over the region’s

onto farmlands and forests.37

four different scenarios.39

2010 population.32 According to Justin

Hembree, executive director of LOSRC,

GroWNC Scenario Planning Business as Usual represents a probable

residents and businesses are attracted

GroWNC is the region’s first compre-

future based on the continuation of

to the region because of its natural

hensive vision developed with input

existing policies. Currently, 47 percent

environment.33 Sitting in the heart of

from local residents and officials

of the region is classified as “natural,”

the Southern Appalachian Mountains,

from all jurisdictions. According to

meaning that it contains less than 1

the region boasts an eclectic mix of

Jeff Staudinger, assistant director of

dwelling unit (DU) per 20 acres. If

river valleys; swift streams; forests of

community and economic develop-

trends continue, by 2040 the acreage of

dogwood, birch, maple, oak and pine;

ment with the city of Asheville and a

natural land would drop by 9.1 percent-

mountain views; and rich soil. Farming

contributor to GroWNC, “we asked

age points. Low-density development

is one of the region’s largest industries;

first and foremost how and where

(0.25 to 1 DU and fewer than 60 em-

in 2007, Land of Sky boasted more than

do we want to grow, what are the at-

ployees per acre) and moderate-density

180,000 acres of prime farmland gen-

tributes of that growth, and what is

development (0.25 to 5 DU and more

erating $135 million in market value.34

irreplaceable if it were lost?”38 More

than 60 employees per acre) would

Tourism is another pillar of the area’s

than 5,000 people participated through

consume much of the natural land.

22

Low- and moderate-density develop-

Residents voted on the important

policy ideas. For those that participate,

ment would increase by 3.9 and 3.3

scenario elements and outcomes, and

GroWNC is a “fantastic resource” that

percentage points, respectively. Business

those results were aggregated to create

highlights successful projects within the

as Usual would increase the number of

a Preferred scenario. Across socioeco-

region from which others may learn,

dispersed homes and businesses, lead-

nomic groups, local residents expressed

says Cynthia Barcklow, a planner with

ing to increased vehicle miles traveled

a desire to preserve the region’s natural

Buncombe County. Barcklow states that

and the inefficient extension of munici-

resources and rural communities and

planners can use the information and

pal services.40

identified areas already served by infra-

analysis to pursue projects and grants

structure as “consensus growth areas”

that previously may have been too

The Efficient Growth scenario tested land

appropriate for development.42 The

difficult to attempt; in addition, the col-

use and transportation outcomes in

Preferred scenario is seen not as a pre-

laborative atmosphere that pervaded the

which future development was con-

scriptive plan but rather as a collection

process makes the framework accessible.44

centrated in existing communities and

of suggested steps to achieve a common

vacant properties were redeveloped.

vision. It encourages new roads, homes,

Barcklow cites Asheville’s East of the

In this scenario, the amount of natural

and businesses in existing communities

Riverway Multimodal Neighborhood

land would still decrease by 2040, but

by supporting the redevelopment of

Project as an example of a local sus-

by only 6.2 percentage points, and low-

brownfields, industrial sites, and old

tainability project working in concert

and moderate-density development

retail centers and preserves farmland

with GroWNC.45 Funded in part by an

would be 2.2 and 1.3 percentage points

and natural areas. Critical watersheds

$850,000 Transportation Investment

lower, respectively, than the Business as

are protected, as are ecological corri-

Generating Economic Recovery grant

Usual scenario. The Resource Conserva-

dors that connect natural areas. The

from the U.S. Department of Transpor-

tion scenario, which tested land use

Preferred scenario improves water and

tation, planning for the East of the

policies that limited development in

air quality over Business as Usual as well

Riverway project occurred in tandem

areas of natural or cultural importance, as conserving more land, providing

with GroWNC.46 “These were highly

would retain the highest acreage of nat-

more transportation options, and con-

synergistic processes, with many of the

ural land at 41.6 percent, a loss of only

centrating more development within

same players involved,” says Staudinger.

5.4 percentage points. Under the Eco-

existing communities.43

“The policies developed for GroWNC

nomic Prosperity scenario, policies would

were shared with the East of the Riv-

encourage brownfield redevelopment

Implementation

erway and vice versa.”47 The project

and conservation of prime agricultural

GroWNC is a voluntary decisionmaking

area contains more than 1,000 acres

land, leading to 2.2 percentage points

framework that includes recommenda-

of ecologically, economically, and

more natural acreage and 1.7 percent-

tions, best practices, and a searchable

culturally important sites between the

age points less low-density development

strategies toolkit that local govern-

French Broad River and downtown

than the Business as Usual scenario.41

ments and agencies can use to find

Asheville. The project integrates existing

transportation, greenway, revitaliza-

tion, and energy plans adopted by the

city to foster a multimodal transporta-

tion network and the redevelopment

of old industrial sites along the French

Broad River. Using $1 million in U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

grants to Asheville and LOSRC, the city

remediated nine brownfield sites in the

project area. One of those remediated

sites became the $175 million expan-

sion of the New Belgium Brewery,

which is expected to open by the end of

2015.48 One of New Belgium’s stated rea-

sons for choosing the riverfront location

was to avoid consuming undeveloped

farmland.49

Hembree explains that GroWNC serves

Linda Giltz

Downtowns and main streets, such as in Brevard, North Carolina shown above, benefit from regional policies as a “super workplan” that supports

that promote renewed investment in developed areas.

and informs all other regional projects,

23

The Opportunities

and Challenges of a

Growing Region

Puget Sound has seen tremendous

growth in recent years; its population

increased by 19 percent between 2000

and 2015. Total employment in the

region increased by 7 percent between

2000 and 2013, driven by high-tech

industries such as information technol-

ogy, which grew by 38 percent, and

aerospace, which grew by 7 percent.56

As a growing region, Puget Sound

Puget Sound Regional Council

is able to support new transit invest-

Regional Equity Network encouraged and financially supported resident participation in the Growing Transit ments, such as a 3.1-mile extension

Communities planning process.

to its existing 15.6-mile Link light rail

providing “a huge library of data as well as Instead, GroWNC began a two-way

system. After Puget Sound approved

a framework for developing more specific conversation with residents. GroWNC

the extension in 2006, voters agreed in

plans.”50 For example, the agricultural

contracted with a firm to create a pro-

2008 to expand the system by 36 miles

needs and strategies identified during

fessional, branded look and conduct

along three corridors: north and east of

GroWNC were used as the basis of WNC

outreach, which Barklow and Hembree

Seattle and south of Sea-Tac Airport.57

AgriVentures, a LOSRC project that

say was important for explaining that

Eventually, the system will stretch from

received $1.63 million in grants from

local residents retained control over

Tacoma to Lynnwood in Snohomish

the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the region’s future and that their local

County and Redmond in King County.

other institutions and was a winner of

governments would not cede land use

Residents of Seattle, King County, and

the Obama administration’s Rural Jobs

authority.54 Barklow, Hembree, and

Snohomish County have also recently

and Innovation Accelerator Challenge

Staudinger expressed their belief that

voted to expand their transit systems

in 2012. WNC AgriVentures promotes

more voices — especially dissenting

and enact improvements.58

job creation and a stronger agricultural

voices — enhanced the overall project

cluster in the region by filling in the gaps

because its success depends on con-

One consequence of this growth,

in the local farming production chain.51

vincing a large and diverse group of

however, has been the rising cost of

GroWNC helps move these types of proj-

stakeholders that building a sustainable

housing, which has forced families to

ect forward, says Hembree, because “we

region is in everyone’s best interest.55

move farther away from jobs, transit,

know these are regional priorities — they

and other amenities; Seattle’s real

were identified through this very compre-

Equitable and Efficient

(inflation-adjusted) housing prices

hensive process.”52

Transit-Oriented Develop-

increased by 20.6 percent from 1998

ment in Puget Sound

to 2012.59 Recognizing these new in-

Lessons Learned

Over the past decade, voters in Wash-

vestments as a historic opportunity to

Early in the planning process, govern-

ington’s Puget Sound have approved

improve equity, regional leaders launched

ments and residents expressed concern

$25 billion in new transit improvements,

GTC, a planning initiative spearheaded

that GroWNC was an extension of

including a 55-mile light rail system.

by PSRC. GTC is the implementation

Agenda 21, a set of nonbinding policy

To ensure that the region realizes the

component of Puget Sound’s existing

recommendations created by the United

full potential of these investments

plans, Vision 2040 and Transporta-

Nations in 1992 to support sustainable

and that the new transit system serves

tion 2040, which are mandated under

development that some have come to

equity and sustainability goals, the

Washington’s Growth Management Act,

see as undermining local authority. One

Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)

a law that requires local governments to

county eventually pulled out of the pro-

launched Growing Transit Communi-

create comprehensive plans consistent

cess, causing officials to refocus outreach

ties (GTC), a planning initiative funded

with a regional plan.60 The Vision 2040

efforts and stress the voluntary nature of

by a $5 million Sustainable Communities

framework concentrates population

the GroWNC framework to gain the sup-

Regional Planning Grant. The initiative and employment growth over the next

port of local governments. The purpose

brought together representatives from

25 years in designated growth centers,

was not “to dictate to our local govern-

10 cities and counties, 14 agencies, and

primarily metropolitan areas and core

ments from up-high policies, procedures, 17 nonprofit organizations to align land

cities.61 GTC supports this framework

or ordinances that they needed to enact

use and transportation policy in Puget

through its three main goals: attracting

to comply with our plan,” says Hembree.53 Sound’s 3 new transit corridors.

more housing and job growth around

24

transit stations, promoting affordable

“the community could never expect

an additional $574,500 in community

housing near transit, and fostering

to be fully engaged.”63 During GTC,

resources.64

greater opportunity for residents

underserved and traditionally margin-

through transit.62

alized populations were encouraged

To help ensure that the benefits of

to participate through the Regional

transit investments are equitably dis-

Making Transit Serve the

Equity Network, which was formed in

tributed, the Regional Equity Network

Needs of All Residents

partnership with Impact Capital. The

worked with the Kirwan Institute for the

According to Tony To, executive

Regional Equity Network provided

Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State

director of HomeSight and vice chair

funding to help residents conduct

University to measure and map access

of GTC, early plans lacked financial

their own outreach, meet with officals,

to opportunity in the region. Kirwan

support to communities, which was a

and create recommendations to influ-

analyzed the conditions of neighbor-

major impediment to robust engage-

ence the plan. In total, the Regional

hoods (defined by census tracts)

ment. Although officials were paid

Equity Network administered $550,000

using education, economic, trans-

for their time, says To, “community

in grants to community organizations

portation, housing, environmental,

members and individuals from volun-

to facilitate resident involvement

and health indicators. These indica-

tary organizations were expected to

in the planning of the transit cor-

tors, which Kirwan developed based

take time off of work,” and as a result,

ridors, which grantees leveraged for

on input from the GTC’s Fair Housing

subcommittee, PSRC planning staff, mem-

bers of the Regional Equity Network, and

other stakeholders, were aggregated to

create an overall opportunity score, and

neighborhoods were sorted by opportu-

nity level: very low, low, moderate, high,

and very high. “Equity” was defined as

allowing all people to “have access to the

resources and opportunities that improve

their quality of life and let them reach

their full potential.”65

The opportunity mapping “allowed

us to see how opportunity is physi-

cally located” and the “communities

that are underinvested,” says To. The

Regional Equity Network found that

57 percent of African Americans, 54

percent of Hispanics, and 53.7 percent

of American Indian or Alaska Native

populations lived in areas of low or very

low opportunity. Whites and Asians, on

the other hand, were much more likely

to live in areas of high or very high

opportunity (42.5% and 43.5%, respec-

tively).66 Most HUD units (51.6%) are in

areas of high or very high opportunity,

but only 33.8 percent of housing choice

voucher holders live in such areas. The

opportunity mapping was incorporated

into GTC station area planning and

made available to affordable housing

developers, local government officials,

and transportation planners to guide

investment in areas of low opportunity

and strengthen connections to high-

Kirwan Institute for the Puget Sound Regional Council

opportunity neighborhoods.67

Areas of high opportunity tend to be north of Seattle in predominantly white neighborhoods, whereas minority communities south of the city tend to have lower opportunity.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 27

25

Growing a Sustainable Future in Central Florida

In 2008, residents of the Central Florida region — seven counties in the Everglades between Miami and Orlando — embarked on a visioning process to determine how their region should develop over the next several decades. Bolstered by a $1.6

million Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant from HUD, the Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC) launched Heartland 2060 , a data-driven regional plan that calls for preserving and protecting natural areas, agriculture, and wildlife; supporting healthy communities; and ensuring a vibrant economic and social life for residents. The challenge for Heartland 2060’s support-ers is how to accommodate growth and

provide employment opportunities in the

predominantly agricultural region, which

is expected to add about 870,000 resi-

dents over the next 50 years, doubling

its current population. All seven coun-

ties assisted in formulating the plan,

which provides a toolkit of development

strategies and information to empower local

leaders to make informed decisions.1

Central Florida’s rural character and

dependence on agriculture are two of

its defining characteristics, says Shan-

non Brett, program director at CFRPC.2

Heartland 2060 declares that agriculture

is “a foundation of the past, present and

U.S. EcoGen’s plantation will use the variant grandis, a species of eucalyptus that produces a woody biomass and grows quickly in sub-tropical climates.

future.” Along with mining and retail ser-

vices, agriculture-related employment is

a pillar of the regional economy.3 As a result, agriculture shapes Central Florida’s emissions and energy use. A report completed under the auspices of the planning grant found that most greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions result from agriculture, with the largest portion emanating from livestock; methane makes up a much larger share of emissions for the Central Florida region than for the state as a whole. On the other hand, the region’s energy consumption per person is lower than the state’s per-person average.4

Agriculture will continue to be an important component of the regional economy. A surprising, but interesting, outcome of the planning process, says Brett, was the compatibility of renewable energy with agriculture. “We found that we have the land area to grow crops that can be used for renewable energy.” Brett cites eucalyptus plantations being developed by U.S.

EcoGen in Polk County as an example of an economically productive marriage of energy and agriculture.5 Eucalyptus trees are among the fastest-growing hardwood trees and can be converted into biofuel to generate power. Eucalyptus plantations can also reduce GHG emissions. Florida’s subtropical climate is ideal for eucalyptus, mirroring the species’ native home of Australia.6 The Polk County plantation is expected to produce enough fuel to generate 180 megawatts of electricity, which should provide power to 50,000 residential customers by 2019.7

CFRPC sees the energy industry as an emerging sector that promises significant positive outcomes for the region.8 Although many current renewable energy projects are small, Brett argues that supporting incipient projects is important for diversifying the regional economy and positioning Central Florida to take advantage of new sources of employment and economic growth.9

1 Central Florida Regional Planning Council. 2014. Heartland 2060: Building a Resilient Region, 19, 39; Central Florida Regional Planning Council. “Heartland 2060: 5-Year Strategic Plan,” Heartland 2060 website (heartland2060.org). Accessed 27 July 2015; EcoAsset Solutions. 2013. “Florida Heartland Energy Baseline and Greenhouse Gas Inventory,” prepared for Central Florida Regional Planning Council, ES1–ES15.

2 Interview with Shannon Brett, 24 July 2015.

3 Central Florida Regional Planning Council 2014, 4, 7, 14.

4 EcoAsset Solutions, ES1–ES15.

5 Interview with Shannon Brett; U.S. EcoGen. “USEG Polk Plantation” (www.usecogen.com/projects/). Accessed 27 July 2015.

6 Jesse Daystar, Ronalds Gonzalez, Carter Reeb, Richard A. Venditti, Trevor Treasure, Robert Abt, and Steve Kelley. 2014. “Economics, Environmental Impacts, and Supply

Chain Analysis of Cellulosic Biomass for Biofuels in the Southern US: Pine, Eucalyptus, Unmanaged Hardwoods, Forest Residues, Switchgrass, and Sweet Sorghum,”

BioResources 9:1, 396, 418–20.

7 Bruce Dorminey. 2013. “Florida Innovates with Its Eucalyptus and Citrus for Biomass Production,” Renewableenergyworld.com, 11 January (www.renewableenergyworld.

com/articles/2013/01/florida-innovates-with-its-climate-and-citrus-for-biomass-production.html). Accessed 27 July 2015.

8 Central Florida Regional Planning Council 2014, 26; Central Florida Regional Planning Council. 2014. “Heartland Economic Futures,” 3–7.

9 Interview with Shannon Brett.

26

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 25

Implementation: The

be finished by 2021. The site of the

community, which indicates a high

Northgate Catalyst Project

Northgate station is currently anchored

risk of displacement for lower-income

GTC performed most of the “on-the-

by a suburban mall, Seattle Community

populations. To help offset this risk,

ground analysis of the existing and

College, and one of the largest medical

PSRC and its partner organizations are

potential station areas to see what

and office centers outside of downtown

creating tools to build affordable hous-

opportunities will exist,” says Ben

Seattle. The area also includes a bus

ing. PSRC used part of its Sustainable

Bakkenta, a program manager at PSRC

transfer center operated by King

Communities Regional Planning Grant

who worked on the project. The analysis

County Metro Transit and serviced by

to research best practices for a revolv-

and opportunity mapping were used to

13 King County bus routes and 2 Sound

ing loan fund to support the acquisition

create a framework of 8 development ap-

Transit regional bus routes.74

of land for affordable housing near

proaches for the 74 transit communities

transit stations. In partnership with

that will help local governments decide

PSRC and Seattle expect the Northgate

Enterprise Community Partners and

how and where to guide development

neighborhood to absorb substantial

Impact Capital, PSRC completed a busi-

around transit stations. The eight ap-

residential and employment growth

ness plan for the fund and is working to

proaches considered not only market

over the next 25 years.75 To guide

secure an initial $5 million. To date, the

forces but also the social dynamics of

Northgate’s transformation into a

fund has received $2.5 million from the

each community. As Bakkenta explains,

mixed-use, transit-friendly community,

city of Seattle, King County, and a con-

“Who is impacted? Who has the po-

GTC funded the creation of the station’s

sortium of cities in King County, and

tential to benefit? Alongside the market

urban design framework, a collection

the remaining $2.5 million was recently

analysis, [the answers to] these questions

of design concepts that address the

approved by the Washington state legis-

give you a much richer knowledge of a

neighborhood’s look and feel, in-

lature, according to Bakkenta.78

particular station area or community.”68

corporate recommended streetscape

improvements, and identify areas

Lessons Learned

Using this framework is ultimately the

within the neighborhood that are ap-

Partnerships and collaboration are

responsibility of each local government, propriate for development.76 GTC also

central to GTC’s goal of building

which controls infrastructure investments, funded the planning for a pedestrian

equitable and sustainable communities

permitting, and zoning. PSRC is currently

bridge to connect Seattle Community

around transit stations. The responsi-

working with 16 local jurisdictions, 9

College to the new station.77

bility of the Northgate station area, for

public agencies, and 17 nongovern-

example, is spread among several agencies

mental organizations that have signed a

PSRC has designated the Northgate sta-

and jurisdictions. The primary catalyst for

regional compact to carry out the GTC

tion as an “expanding housing choices”

pursuing TOD is Sound Transit’s light

strategies.69 To demonstrate the feasibility

and best practices of transit-oriented de-

velopment (TOD) in the region, PSRC

launched catalytic projects in each

corridor. Along the north corridor,

PSRC, Seattle, King County, and Sound

Transit are collaborating on the North-

gate Catalyst project, which uses the

neighborhood’s new light rail extension

to shift the area from auto-oriented

development to TOD.70 Northgate was

designated a regional growth center

in Vision 2040 and is one of Seattle’s

“mixed-use centers.”71

The 4.3-mile north corridor extension

will be composed of three new stations:

U District, Roosevelt, and Northgate.72

Sound Transit’s tunnel-boring machines

are currently digging the underground

portions of the line that add onto the

University of Washington extension,

which is nearing completion.73 Work

The Puget Sound Regional Council carried out subarea planning for the neighborhood around Tacoma’s Dome on the north corridor is expected to

Station, once the southern terminus of the Sounder regional rail south line and home to the Tacoma Link.

27

rail investments in the neighborhood.

“agencies and jurisdictions support the

with regional plans and can withhold

The city of Seattle controls zoning

equity components” such as afford-

infrastructure funding from jurisdictions

and permitting within the station area;

able housing and protection for local

with inconsistent plans. The act also

although PSRC may have helped create

businesses. He argues that “balancing

empowered Puget Sound’s jurisdic-

the station area plans, the city must de-

equity and growth benefits everyone be-

tions to use urban growth boundaries

cide whether to implement them. King

cause it ultimately reduced the cost to the

(UGB), a tool that limits development

County controls a significant amount

public through more effective solutions

and services such as roads and sewers

of land in the area, including the bus

and [by] minimizing disparities” among

outside of established communities.

transfer center, and operates a number

the residents.

Since the launch of the Growth Manage-

of local bus routes. Without King County

ment Act, 85 percent of new growth in

and Sound Transit’s investments, a

Puget Sound’s communities have a

Puget Sound has occurred within the

mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly commu-

long history of supporting projects

UGB.79 Bakkenta argues, however,

nity as envisioned by both Seattle and

such as GTC, says Bakkenta, because of

that although the act gives regional

GTC would not take hold. Residents

the institutional change brought about

plans a certain amount of heft, its true

must also support TOD at Northgate for

by Washington’s Growth Management

value was in institutionalizing regional

it to be effective. Residential and com-

Act. Under the act, PSRC reviews and

planning. GTC’s policies and recom-

munity buy-in is possible, To says, where

certifies that local plans are consistent

mendations still needed widespread

support because PSRC could not

simply compel jurisdictions to think

regionally, and PSRC still needs to “walk

a tightrope between local government

and regionalism,” says Bakkenta. As a

result, PSRC is using voluntary tools

such as the nonbinding regional com-

pact and local workplans to implement

the GTC framework.

Conclusion

Vibrant NEO, GroWNC, and GTC

each work to make their respective

regions more sustainable and equitable.

NEOSCC focused on the growing cost

of infrastructure obligations and the

financial impacts of dispersed land

use patterns. LOSRC sought to protect

Western North Carolina’s economically,

culturally, and aesthetically valuable

assets. PSRC coordinated Puget Sound’s

historic transit investments to expand

access to opportunity. Although some

details differ, the three consortiums

used collaboration, robust engagement,

and sound data analysis to introduce

policies that are regarded as beneficial

to the entire region as well as to indi-

vidual communities.

In all three regions, the data these

organizations compiled were essential for

convincing officials and residents of the

benefits of coordinated investments.

Romancak explains that “at the end

of the day, it’s very hard to argue with

Kirwan Institute for the Puget Sound Regional Council

the data. It’s hard to look at how things

PSRC hopes to use Puget Sound’s new light rail lines to connect all residents to areas of high opportunity.

have gone and allow that scenario

28

to continue to play out and think that

anyone in this area could be considered

Partnerships and collaboration are central

a winner.”80 Staudinger similarly explains

that although an “urban-rural tension”

to building equitable and sustainable

persists, GroWNC showed that “Asheville

communities around transit stations.

and rural communities have a symbiotic

relationship” by demonstrating “how

neighboring communities benefit from because the consortiums have limited

about issues that often are pushed into

what Asheville is doing” and how Ashe-

funds to support projects, tying any

the background. Bakkenta argues that,

ville depends on the economic activity

specific change, policy, or project back

in part because of GTC, “the whole

of surrounding communities.81

to the regional vision is difficult. Some

notion of equitable development as

ongoing projects in Northeast Ohio are

a regional conversation has become

Using a common set of indicators

furthering the aims of Vibrant NEO

elevated.”88 Changes in how people

helped move the conversation away

but are not funded by NEOSCC. For

think about and discuss their region,

from the “raw politics” of winners

example, the Thriving Communities

however, are subtle and can take years.

and losers, says Morrison of NEOSCC,

Institute is mapping vacant proper-

“These are difficult conversations,” says

making agreement easier.82 The col-

ties in Cuyahoga County, a step that

Morrison. “It takes numerous negotiations

laborative process and the voluntary

furthers the Vibrant NEO initiative to

over time. But it’s the direction of the

frameworks were broadly seen as

“coordinate existing land bank efforts

conversations that matters… and on that,

essential to developing cohesive plans

to acquire, assemble, manage, and

we are making progress.”89

and as integral to successful implemen-

dispose of vacant property” but is not

tation. Widespread support among

financially supported by NEOSCC.84

1 Lisa T. Alexander. 2010. “The Promise and Perils

of ‘New Regionalist’ Approaches to Sustainable

officials and buy-in among residents

Communities,” Fordham Urban Law Journal 38:3,

are necessary for both political and

In Puget Sound and Western North

637, 649; Gerrit-Jan Knaap and Rebecca Lewis. 2011.

“Regional Planning for Sustainability and Hegemony

practical reasons. Land use, housing,

Carolina, the preexisting regional plan-

of Metropolitan Regionalism,” in Regional Planning

and infrastructure decisions are spread

ning bodies have made transitioning

In America: Practice and Prospects, Ethan Seltzer and

among city, county, and state actors and

to implementation easier because they

Armando Carbonell, eds. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln

Institute of Land Policy, 178; Carleton K. Montgomery.

metropolitan planning organizations

can incorporate GTC and GroWNC

2011. “Introduction,” in Regional Planning for a Sus-

that are reluctant to relinquish author-

into their other projects. Hembree

tainable America: How Creative Programs Are Promoting

Prosperity and Saving the Environment. New Brunswick,

ity. In Western North Carolina, even

notes that whenever LOSRC begins a

New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1.

the rumor of diminishing local govern-

new project, “one of the first questions

2 Sasaki Associates. 2014. Vibrant NEO 2040 , prepared for the Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities

ment power caused some participants

we ask is, ‘How does this tie into the

Consortium.

to pull out. Residents are also more

GroWNC plan?’” LOSRC is currently

3 Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consor-

likely to support a plan that they have

translating elements from GroWNC

tium. “History and Mission” (vibrantneo.org/neoscc/

history/). Accessed 2 July 2015.

helped craft. To explains that providing

to add to the region’s Comprehensive

4 Sasaki Associates, 37.

resources to include community voices

Economic Development Strategy, which

5 Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium.

in the process encourages residents to

will guide economic development

n.d. “Conditions and Trends,” 2; Ohio Development Department Economic Research Division. 1969. “Sta-

“actually support growth,” which “saves

policies in the coming years.85 PSRC

tistical Abstract of Ohio 1969,” 77.

governments a lot of money, because

created a board within their organiza-

6 Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Con-

they don’t have to fight a lot of unneces-

tion focused specifically on integrating

sortium. “Northeast Ohio’s population has been

spreading out” (cat.neoscc.org/findings/population-

sary battles.”83

TOD into other projects, and most lo-

decline/northeast-ohios-population-has-been-spread-

cal jurisdictions have signed a regional

ing-out/). Accessed 2 July 2015; Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium “Conditions

The emphasis on collaboration and

compact in which they agree to employ

and trends,” 3.

voluntary frameworks, although helpful

GTC.86 Both Hembree and Bakkenta,

7 Interview with Bethia Burke, 18 June 2015.

during the planning process, has cre-

however, acknowledge the necessity and

8 Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium

“Conditions and trends,” 3.

ated difficulties when translating

difficulty of sustaining a high level of

9 Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Con-

the plan into action. According to

engagement with local partners during

sortium. “The funds available for transportation

Burke, “part of the work ahead of us is

the transition to implementation.87

infrastructure construction and maintenance are

declining. Northeast Ohio is unlikely to see ad-

to reconstitute the board to have more

ditional freeway or rail transit network development

[of an] implementation focus, [but]

Despite these challenges, Vibrant NEO,

in the foreseeable future and will need to maintain

the infrastructure it has in place” (cat.neoscc.org/

that transition has been a challenge.”

GroWNC, and GTC precipitated an

findings/continuing-challenges/the-funds-available-

Because local governments and private

important, but difficult to measure,

for-transportation-infrastructure-construction-and-

maintenance-are-declining-northeast-ohio-is-unlikely-

organizations are ultimately responsible

shift in how individuals view regional

to-see-additional-freeway-or-rail-transit-network-devel-

for implementing regional visions and

concerns, empowering people to think

opment-in-the-fores/). Accessed 2 July 2015.

29

10 Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consor-

46 City of Asheville Office of Sustainability. 2012. “Reduc-

Program: Final Report,” 3; Interview with Tony To.

tium. n.d. “Vibrant NEO Guidebook For a More Vi-

ing Energy Use in the East of the Riverway,” 1–5; City 65 The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnic-

brant, Resilient, and Sustainable Northeast Ohio, ” 2.

of Asheville. “Current Initiatives” (www.ashevillenc.

ity. 2012. “Equity, Opportunity, and Sustainability in

11 Interview with Frederick Wright, 17 June 2015.

gov/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/Curren-

the Central Puget Sound Region: Geography Of Op-

tInitiatives.aspx). Accessed 2 July 2015.

12 Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consor-

portunity In The Central Puget Sound Region, ” 3.

47

tium. “Have you imagined about Northeast Ohio yet?

Interview with Jeff Staudinger.

66 The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnic-

Imagine MyNEO is now live” (vibrantneo.org/tag/

48 City of Asheville. n.d. “Asheville East of the RiverWay

ity, 7.

imaginemyneo/). Accessed 2 July 2014; Interview with

Sustainable Neighborhood”; City of Asheville. 2014.

67 Ibid., 12.

Frederick Wright.

“East of the Riverway Connections, ” 18 March Public 68 Interview with Ben Bakkenta, 16 June 2015.

13 Arnab Chakraborty and Andrew McMillan. 2015.

Workshop presentation; U.S. Environmental Protec-

69 Puget Sound Regional Council. 2013. “Growing

“Scenario Planning for Urban Planners: Toward a

tion Agency. 2013. “City of Asheville, Land-of-Sky and

Transit Communities Compact” (www.psrc.org/as-

Practitioner’s Guide,” Journal of the American Planning

Federal Partners Mark 4th Anniversary of Partner-

Association,

sets/10017/GTCCompact.pdf)

1–5.

ship for Sustainable Communities/Partnership has

. Accessed 2 July 2015;

invested and leveraged $5.83 million in Asheville-area

Puget Sound Regional Council. “Regional Compact

14 Interview with Frederick Wright.

projects, ” 1 August press release.

+ Partners” (www.psrc.org/growth/tod/compact-

15 Sasaki Associates, 33.

49 New Belgium Brewery. “Frequently Asked Questions”

partners/). Accessed 2 July 2015.

16 Ibid., 44.

(www.newbelgium.com/community/ashevillebrewery/

70 Puget Sound Regional Council. 2013. “Corridor Spe-

17 Ibid., 52–3.

faq.aspx). Accessed 2 July 2015.

cific Implementation Priorities,” 69–70.

18 Ibid., 45.

50 Interview with Justin Hembree.

71 Puget Sound Regional Council 2008, 50; Barbara

19 Ibid., 53.

51 GroWNC “WNC Agriventures” (strategies.gro-wnc.

Wilson and Katie Sheehy. 2010. “Seattle Transit Com-

org/highlights/209). Accessed 2 July 2015; U.S. Envi-

munities: Integrating Neighborhoods with Transit,”

20 Ibid., 3.

ronmental Protection Agency 2013.

Seattle Planning Commission, 14–6.

21 Interview with Hunter Morrison, 23 June 2015.

52 Interview with Justin Hembree.

72 Sound Transit. n.d. “Link Light Rail System: North-

22 Sasaki Associates, 94.

53 Ibid.

gate Link Fact Sheet.”

23 Interview with Bethia Burke; Northeast Ohio Sustain-

73

54 Ibid.; Interview with Cynthia Barklow.

Ibid.

able Communities Consortium. 2014. “Vibrant NEO:

74 City of Seattle. 2013. “Northgate Urban Design

Vision, Framework and Action Products,” 4 March 55 Interview with Justin Hembree; Interview with Cynthia

Framework, ” 6.

presentation.

Barklow; Interview with Jeff Staudinger.

75

56

Puget Sound Regional Council. “Northgate SAP”

24 Interview with Grace Gallucci, 19 June 2015.

Puget Sound Regional Council. “Regional Data Pro-

file: Population & Households” (www.psrc.org/data/

(www.psrc.org/assets/10147/Northgate_SAP.pdf).

25 Sasaki Associates, 122–52.

regionalprofile/regionalprofile-pop). Accessed 2 July Accessed 17 July 2015.

26 Interview with Bethia Burke.

2015; Puget Sound Regional Council. “Regional Data

76 City of Seattle. “Urban Design Framework Northgate

27 Interview with Hunter Morrison.

Profile: Economy” (www.psrc.org/data/regionalpro-

Urban Design - What & Why - Seattle Department of

28 Interview with Donald Romancak, 15 June 2015.

file/regionalprofile-economy/). Accessed 2 July 2015.

Planning and Development” (www.seattle.gov/dpd/

57

cityplanning/completeprojectslist/northgate/what-

29 Sasaki Associates, 12–3.

Puget Sound Regional Council. 2013. The Growing

Transit Communities Strategy , 4; Sound Transit. “Re-

why/default.htm). Accessed 17 July 2015.

30 Land of Sky Regional Council. “Our Region” (www.

gional transit history 1997 – 2003” (www.soundtran-

77 Puget Sound Regional Council. 2012. “Growing

landofsky.org/ourregion.html). Accessed 2 July 2015;

sit.org/About-Sound-Transit/News-and-events/

Transit Communities North Corridor Task Force

LandDesign. 2014. GroWNC Regional Plan , prepared

Reports/1997---2003). Accessed 17 July 2015; Sound

Draft Summary notes for May 9 2012,” 1–2; Puget for the Gro-WNC Initiative, 1.

Transit “Regional transit history 2005 – 2007” (www.

Sound Regional Council. n.d. “PSRC’s FHWA-Funded

31 GroWNC. “About GroWNC” (www.gro-wnc.org/about.

soundtransit.org/About-Sound-Transit/News-and-

Projects that Delivered in (Federal Fiscal Year) 2013”;

html). Accessed 2 July 2015; GroWNC. “GroWNC

events/Reports/2005---2007). Accessed 17 July 2015.

Seattle Department of Transportation. “Northgate

Consortium” (www.gro-wnc.org/consortium.html).

58 Robert Drewel. 2011. “Integrated Planning for a

Pedestrian & Bicycle Bridge” (www.seattle.gov/trans-

Accessed 2 July 2015.

Sustainable Future in Puget Sound,” in Regional Plan-

portation/northgatepedbridge.htm). Accessed 14 July 32 Land of Sky Regional Council. 2013. “Existing Condi-

ning for a Sustainable America: How Creative Programs

2015.

tions,” 22.

Are Promoting Prosperity and Saving the Environment,

78 Interview with Ben Bakkenta; Puget Sound Regional

33 Interview with Justin Hembree, 25 June 2015.

Carleton K. Montgomery, ed. New Brunswick: Rutgers

Council. “A Regional Equitable Development Initia-

University Press, 141.

34 Land of Sky Regional Council 2013, 15.

tive Fund for Transit Communities” (www.psrc.org/

59 Jeffrey P. Cohen, Cletus C. Coughlin, and David A.

assets/11579/REDIFundFramework1pager.pdf).

35 LandDesign, 17–8.

Lopez. 2012. “The Boom and Bust of U.S. Housing

Accessed 12 July 2015; Puget Sound Regional Council

36 Interview with Justin Hembree.

Prices from Various Geographic Perspectives, ” Federal

“Northgate SAP.”

37 LandDesign, 22–5.

Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, September/October,

79 Robert Drewel, 137; Puget Sound Regional Council

38 Interview with Jeff Staudinger, 25 June 2015.

350.

“The Washington State Growth Management Act with

60

39 LandDesign, 10; 43–51; GroWNC. “Maps” (www.gro-

Puget Sound Regional Council. n.d. “The Washing-

Applications for the Central Puget Sound Region”;

wnc.org/maps.html). Accessed 2 July 2015; GroWNC.

ton State Growth Management Act with Applications

Puget Sound Regional Council. 2008. “Development

“Public Involvement Archive” (www.gro-wnc.org/

for the Central Puget Sound Region”; Washington

Patterns Shift Under Growth Management Act.”

archive.html). Accessed 17 July 2015.

Department of Commerce. “A Short Course On Local

80 Interview with Don Romancak.

Planning,” 77–115; Strategic Economics and Center 40 GroWNC. “Business as Usual” (www.gro-wnc.org/pdf/

81

for Transit Oriented Development. 2013. “Imple-

Interview with Jeff Staudinger.

Scenarios/Final%20Posters_BAU_AreaType_Poster.

menting Equitable Transit Communities Regional &

82 Interview with Hunter Morrison.

pdf). Accessed 17 July 2015; LandDesign, 53.

Local Recommendations for the Central Puget Sound

83 Interview with Tony To.

41 GroWNC. n.d. “How We GROW Matters,” 2–11.

Region, ” prepared for the Puget Sound Regional 84 Interview with Bethia Burke.

42 LandDesign, 51.

Council, 2–4.

85 Interview with Justin Hembree.

43 Ibid., 51–3; GroWNC. “Preferred Scenario Growth

61 Puget Sound Regional Council. 2008. Vision 2040 .

86

Concept” (www.gro-wnc.org/pdf/Scenarios/Pre-

Interview with Ben Bakkenta.

62 Puget Sound Regional Council 2013, 4.

ferredScenario_GrowthConcept_2013_04_25.pdf).

87 Interview with Justin Hembree; Interview with Ben

63 Interview with Tony To, 29 June 2015.

Accessed 17 July 2015.

Bakkenta.

64 Puget Sound Regional Council. 2011. “A Regional

44 Interview with Cynthia Barklow, 19 June 2015.

88

Equity Network”; Regional Equity Network. 2014.

Interview with Ben Bakkenta.

45 Ibid.

“Growing Transit Communities Equity Grant

89 Interview with Hunter Morrison.

30

Additional Resources

n The New Transit Town: Best Practices

Sustainable Communities Initiative grantees.

corridors, reimagining education to build

in Transit-Oriented Development (2004),

pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcon-

cradle-to-career systems, and reducing

edited by Hank Dittmar and Gloria Ohland,

tent.cgi?article=1083&context=usp_fac.

youth recidivism. The Living Cities website

reviews issues related to transit-oriented

hosts resources related to these and other

development and profiles several examples. n The Association of Metropolitan Planning relevant topics. www.livingcities.org/re-

islandpress.org/new-transit-town.

Organizations website hosts a topically

sources.

organized library of resources and publica-

n “Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs

tions containing best practices for regional

n Smart Growth America supports the

in Metropolitan America” (2011), by Adie

transportation planning. www.ampo.org/

creation and maintenance of healthy com-

Tomer, Elizabeth Kneebone, Robert Puen-

resources-publications/best-practices/.

munities that have a range of housing,

tes, and Alan Berube, investigates transit

transportation, employment, and retail op-

coverage and access to employment in the

n Working Across Boundaries: People,

tions through cutting edge research, policy

nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas.

Nature, and Regions (2009), by Matthew J.

development, and coalition building.

www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/

McKinney and Shawn Johnson, discusses

www.smartgrowthamerica.org/.

files/reports/2011/5/12-jobs-and-tran-

strategies for regional collaboration.

sit/0512_jobs_transit.pdf.

www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/1674_Work-

n The Metropolitan Revolution: How Cities

ing-Across-Boundaries.

and Metros Are Fixing Our Broken Politics

n The Just City (2011), by Susan S.

and Fragile Economy, by Bruce Katz and

Fainstein, applies theories of justice to

n Inside Game Outside Game: Winning Strat-

Jennifer Bradley, highlights metropolitan

urban planning processes and plans.

egies for Saving Urban America (1999), by

areas that are taking it upon themselves to

www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/

David Rusk, argues that state legislatures

develop successful economic strategies that

book/?GCOI=80140100737740.

should create regional revenue sharing to

address 21st century challenges.

reduce fiscal disparity among communi-

metrorevolution.org/.

n Just Growth: Inclusion and Prosperity in

ties, develop regional housing policies to

America’s Metropolitan Regions (2012), by

eliminate concentrations of poverty, and

n American Metropolitics: The New Suburban

Chris Benner and Manuel Pastor, explores

use coherent regional land-use planning

Reality (2002), by Myron Orfield, addresses

possible explanations for why and how

and growth management to control urban

issues of intraregional inequity by analyz-

some regions achieve equitable growth

sprawl. www.brookings.edu/research/

ing the 25 largest metropolitan regions in

while others do not, including seven detailed

books/1999/savamr.

the United States as well as detailed case

case studies. www.routledge.com/prod-

studies and mapping. www.brookings.

ucts/9780415517812.

n Living Cities is a consortium of 22 founda-

edu/research/books/2002/american-

tions and financial institutions focused

metropolitics.

n “Revisiting Equity: The HUD Sustainable

on developing strategies that change the

Communities Initiative” (2013), by Lisa

physical and human landscape of cities to

For additional resources archive, go to

K. Bates and Marisa Zapata, reviews the

improve the lives of low-income people,

www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/

equity component of the plans of 13

focusing on affordable housing in transit

additional_resources_2015.html.

Evidence Matters

Discuss this issue on the

Evidence Matters Forum at

Rachelle Levitt: Editor

www.huduser.gov/forums.

Keith Fudge: Managing Editor

You can subscribe to

Evidence Matters at

Authors: Sage Computing staff

www.huduser.gov/

portal/evidence.html.

31

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

PRESORTED

HUD User

FIRST-CLASS MAIL

P.O. Box 23268

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

Washington, DC 20026—3268

HUD

PERMIT NO. G—795

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Return Service Requested

Scan here for past issues

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

www.hud.gov/policy n 800.245.2691

Table of Contents

part by regional collaboration to pool

(locationaffordability.info/about_lai.aspx)

Green

Infrastructure and the Sustainable Communities Initia-

tive

(www.hcp-chicago.org/2014/

program/project-opportunity/)

(www.hudexchange.info/programs/sci/

resources)

(www.rtd-fastracks.com/ep3_2)

seven50.org/plan/

what-is-seven50/

Central Florida Regional Planning Council 2014, 26; Central Florida Regional Planning Council. 2014.