1. Reinvest in and strengthen existing neighborhoods and communities
2. Mix land uses effectively
3. Foster distinctive neighborhoods with a strong sense of place and a civic core
4. Create housing opportunities for a range of household types, family sizes, and incomes
5. Take advantage of good building design
6. Create walkable neighborhoods
   
7. Provide a variety of transportation choices
   
8. Preserve critical open space, farmland, and natural resources
   
9. Promote balanced regional development
   
10. Make development decisions fair, predictable, and cost-effective
    
11. Engage all stakeholders early and on-going in decision-making for
    development
    
12. Reduce/remove public subsidies for scattered and strip development

To be effective as an agent of change in local land-use matters one must:

1. Understand that most change comes only incrementally, if at all
           - over time, incremental changes may yield system change
2. Use the tools of planning and analysis effectively
   
3. Know and use the local bureaucratic processes to advantage
            - and the always-present back-channels, as well
4. Build and use political influence at a high level of skill and effectiveness
5. Communicate effectively to mobilize public opinion
            - understand the role of opinion leaders
   
6. Know how to overcome fear and inertia
            - understand that fear trumps hope
            - cultivate trust and transparency
   
7. Know how to facilitate principled bargaining and negotiation
   
8. Be prepared to deal with the opponents to change, esp. at the extremes
   
9. Be prepared when a window of opportunity opens for system change
   
10. Understand the need for and requirements of leadership

The case study describes a successful smart growth initiative in the town of Amherst, Massachusetts, at an intersection known as Atkins Corner. The initiative grew from two motivating factors: the necessity of realigning Route 116, a major north-to-south artery through the town, to decrease traffic accidents at the intersection and improve pedestrian safety; and a desire on the part of Hampshire College and the Town to create a village center at the intersection. Through a consensus-building process involving key town officials, Hampshire College, neighbors, and the design firm of Dodson Associates, agreement on the project was reached with local stakeholders and residents. The first phase of the project, involving realignment of Route 116, is now underway.

back to top

Mansfield CT: Planning a New Village Center
by Maggie Jones, August 2006. (ne/efc case 03-06)

The case follows the development of a plan for a new village center in Storrs, the central village of Mansfield, Connecticut. A process that was transparent and inclusive of the community members yielded a plan that gained the approval of the Town, the landowner (the University of Connecticut), and the citizenry. The process relied on the mending of fences, the leadership of key participants, and an innovative strategy that included development of a nonprofit corporation and creative use of grant money. While zoning changes are still in the works, the first stage of building goes forward.

A community with a variety of conflicting interests and philosophies manages to build consensus around zoning changes to protect land around its interstate access. The work on I-89 Exit 4 extended over a long time period and suffered from attrition and frustration. However, key residents in the town of Randolph, Vermont, were able to put aside differences long enough to agree upon a course of action to benefit the community as a whole. It remains to be seen whether the proposed zoning will indeed be passed by Randolph's Board of Selectmen and accepted by the community.

back to top

South Kingstown RI: New Zoning for an Historic Mill
by Maggie Jones, August 2006. (ne/efc case 06-06)

The village of Peace Dale in the town of South Kingstown, Rhode Island, developed around several mills that commenced operations in the 1800s. One mill, known as the Palisades, is still partially active and in excellent condition, but much of its square footage is unutilized. A citizens' group of artists and business people joined with the mill owners and the town of South Kingstown to develop new zoning regulations to make more flexible the permitted uses for the mill site. The proposed zoning will allow the mill complex to feature a mix of retail, residential, and manufacturing uses, while preserving the exterior of the mill buildings and protecting the river nearby. The narrative describes the public process that led to the development of the proposed new zoning.

Brunswick ME: De-militarizing the BNAS
by Anne Holland with assistance from Brett Richardson, May 2008.

Closure of the Brunswick Naval Air Station in 2011 will have profound economic impacts on the entire mid-coast Maine region of Maine, with an estimated loss of 6,500 jobs and $330 million annual income. Throughout the Base Realignment and Closure process, Brunswick, the region, and the State of Maine followed federal rules and developed the federally-funded Brunswick Local Redevelopment Authority (BLRA) to plan for reuse of the 3300 acre base. In its planning process, the BLRA adhered to a number of well thought-out Guiding Principles, including the use of extensive public participation and the consideration of “smart growth” principles and strategies. This case study looks at the composition of the BLRA board, the planning process it pursued, and the likelihood of a “smart growth” plan and zoning being adopted by the Town.

Portland ME: Affordable Housing v. Open Space
by Patrick Wright with the assistance of Brett Richardson, May 2008.

Amid an acknowledged “affordable housing crisis”, a first-time developer approaches the City to release part of a tax-acquired property, promising a smart-growth development that would provide sorely needed starter homes for working families. The case highlights the complications of balancing competing interests in Portland ME. It shows where rational planning fails in the presence of strong neighborhood opposition, a disjointed city staff structure, and the absence of political will among City Councilors. It highlights the need for champions within local government when a project evokes competing interests. It demonstrates the extent to which “words matter” to policy outcomes, and who gets to define them – in this case, in the fateful difference between “preservation” and “conservation.” Finally, it suggests that NIMBY responses to development proposals may depend as much upon how and by whom it is put forward as by what.

back to top