Our community is in the final steps of a long and arduous effort to adopt a new comprehensive plan. Instead of a sense of accomplishment, however, there is a spate of comments and emotions that suggest the proposed plan fails us. This plan, and our community, deserves a much better verdict. Over 1,000 people participated in various workshops and meetings and hundreds made their views known in public opinion surveys. The numerous policies and goals balance a wide variety of viewpoints and interests. In balancing these opinions, the plan has been shaped to reflect the wishes of residents in several established neighborhoods. It also builds on the past planning efforts, bringing forward the best policies of the old 1994 plan and adding needed improvements that, for 15 years, the community has said we want in a plan.
The proposed plan stresses the importance of wildlife and contains numerous policies and goals to steer future development away from crucial habitats and natural resource areas. The plan promotes strategies to minimize traffic growth and calls for expansions in the use of transit and pathways. Maintaining a resident workforce has been a core objective of our community for decades and the new plan continues this goal. The plan outlines policies to preserve community character and sustain our quality of life and it is packed full of goals and strategies that long have been in the mainstream of our community’s values.
So, what is the problem? Why all of the angst in these final steps? Why are we not applauding adoption of the plan? Most of the controversy is aimed at future land use maps, which are called characteristic district maps in planning lingo. These maps identify locations where future development can occur and be least harmful to the wildlife habitats and other protected resources. The maps steer development to locations that fulfill community goals about transportation, governmental services, workforce housing and other important topics. The maps also show areas where development should be held to the lowest level possible to protect habitats, scenic vistas and other beloved features of our community. These maps represent a clear step forward beyond the old 1994 plan and direct future development based on the numerous goals in the new plan. In addition to the maps that redirect future development, the new plan contains a clear statement that the overall amount of development will not be increased beyond the amount that is allowed by current rules and regulations.
Future land use maps are a critical part of a comprehensive plan. Including them in the proposed plan overcomes the biggest deficiency of the 1994 comprehensive plan. The 1994 plan does not include land use maps, and because of this missing element, it has been ineffectual in guiding land uses and influencing decisions. In order for a plan to be truly comprehensive, it must do more than simply list the areas of a community that should be preserved. It also must anticipate that future development will occur and land use maps are essential to prepare for development in a reasoned way.
Many members of our community fear that future development will not be redirected from one location to another, but simply increased. They think the new plan does not state emphatically enough that the overall amount of development will not be increased. Others believe that political forces will lead to an increase in total development irrespective of the words in the plan. In an attempt to organize broad support for the plan, several well-intended groups and individuals published a statement of intent. This statement is presented as a summary of the intent of the proposed plan but it falls short in meeting this description. While the statement of intent lists several provisions that properly reflect the plan, it also includes other provisions that are not in the plan.
One of the misguided provisions calls for permanent conservation easements to be recorded before development can be redirected according to the land use maps. This idea was proposed, debated at great length and not included in the proposed plan for sound reasons. Another provision in the statement of intent says the amount of development to be redirected to new locations must be quantified. This idea also was debated for months and not included in the plan for sound reasons. While a summary statement can help bring our planning process to a successful conclusion, incorrect representations in the statement add confusion and fuel emotions about the proposed plan. The statement of intent should be revised to replace the misleading statements with correct representations of the plan, and then all of us can sign it and bring a suitable conclusion to this long planning effort.
About the author:
Bill Collins worked as a community planning director for 23 years, including 10½ years as Teton County director. He has been a private planning consultant for 8 years, providing consulting services to 22 local and state governments in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Arizona.
