Home Conserving Wildlifeconservation policy time for a new approach to land use regulation

time for a new approach to land use regulation

by Larry Niles
73 comments

One of the fundamental and intransient aspects of land use planning in New Jersey (and many northeast states) is the dominant role of municipalities.  In New Jersey and states north, land use decisions are made by municipalities, states south are county-planned. There is a big difference between the two.  Here, there are over 500 municipalities and all have their own idea of the future of land use in their community.  The problem is the impact of poor decision making is felt not by one municipality but all those surrounding it.  Conversely, the good work of one community can be easily undone by the others around it,  all chasing commercial ratables.   These kinds of weaknesses make communities easy prey for determined developers that have no thought about the impact of their development on the community —  they just want to make money.  County plans can work better simply because they command a larger area and can regulate land use for the benefit of many communities.  A good example is the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. 

A painting from the Eastern Shore Conservancy, a group dedicated to wisely planning the Cheasapeake Bay’s eastern shore. Their advantage is the entire eastern shore is planned by just six counties. The bigger the planning area, the better the planning.  For example the widely criticized Pinelands Commission Protection Area,  has — despite its many detractors — enjoyed lower property value loss and lower property taxes than the state as a whole while encouraging superior town and urban redevelopment.  Has anyone noticed the restoration of the downtown section of Hammonton?  Compare that to Bridgeton which lies just outside the pinelands. Property taxes in the Pinelands, one of two regionally planned areas in the state, are among the lowest in the state ( graph from 2009 Pineland Commssion Report)

There are other benefits to larger-scale planning, but the argument is all but lost here in NJ.  We are a municipal-planned state and we probably always will be.  Unfortunately, it has led to a conservation policy disaster.  Lands for wildlife including rare species have been declining for decades despite the implementation of some of the most restrictive land-use regulations in the country.  The regulations – carried out on a site-by-site basis — have created a burdensome process for nearly everyone: homeowners, landowners, builders, developers even conservation land managers trying to restore damaged wildlife habitat.  Ironically a recent report by John Hasse and Rick Lathrup of Rowan and Rutgers University, respectively, shows that despite all this regulation the pace of the destruction of habitat has not changed over the last 30 years .   The reasons are legion, but one of the main ones is the failure of municipal and state regulators to agree on want land should be developed and conserved.

What can be done? To answer that we must start with question –  as a citizen, do you want economic prosperity or development?  The two are often confused despite the data that clearly shows well functioning, vibrant towns and cities create prosperity that doesn’t rely on endless housing tracts sprawling into the countryside.   In other words habitat-destroying sprawl does not bring prosperity, good planning brings prosperity.   So how do we make better planning?

The rate that wild land is being lost to development has not changed significantly for the last 25 years according a a new report on state land use by John Hasse and Rick Lathrop.

This week Rick Lathrop the Director of Rutgers Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis (CRSSA) and I proposed to state regulators a new municipally-based system for protecting wildlife habitats.  We want to transform the current system, where municipal planners decide where development takes places and state regulatory agencies tell them where it cannot take place.  The two often work at odds and the costs is born by the landowner who gets approval to build from his local planning board only to find out later that the state opposes his plan.

Our method is based on the value of habitat for various listed species.  We have created a new geographic information system (GIS) that allows habitat value to be estimated for any listed species so that this value can be replaced if it is being lost to development. Our model allow municipalities  the ability to achieve no-net-loss of habitat value plans that allow the location of conserved land to be flexible.  The state regulators, who now review proposed developments site-by-site will now be able to review municipal-scale plans.

The system is based on the concept that no-net-loss of habitat value would be sufficient to protect most endangered and threatened species.  In reality, some places like Bald Eagle nest or rattlesnake dens will have definite sites that must be protected.  But most of the current land use conflicts arise in habitats whose qualities can be replicated through management.    Using our model municipal planners can require site modifications that would simultaneously decrease the cost of habitat value but allow the replacement of lost value through long-term management agreements or outright protection, or both.  Municipal officials do municipal-scale plans for other regulations like fire safety, water drainage and water quality and state officials review the municipal plan,  not individual site plans.

This may not stop what seems like the inevitable destruction of the NJ countryside and the senseless march towards “build out”. But it will make the process of regulation more efficient and effective. It will also give greater voice to the people of the community which could have been the major problem all along.

Related Articles

Leave a Comment

Translate »