| Questions 3 and 4 about State
Planning In Wisconsin |
Number of responses per topic |
|
Number of responses per topic |
| STRENGTHS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| State Planning |
Number |
Local Jurisdiction |
Number |
|
|
|
|
| Environmental preservation |
6 |
Master Plan (planning) |
4 |
| Transportation planning |
4 |
Public input |
3 |
| Regional Plan Commissions |
3 |
Identifying environmental
corridors |
2 |
| Urban redevelopment |
2 |
Transportation planning |
2 |
| Farmland preservation |
2 |
Communication within and between
units of government |
1 |
| Success at local levels |
2 |
Intergovernmental agreements |
1 |
| Growth management |
2 |
Good planning staff |
1 |
| Chapter 66 |
1 |
Good boards and commissions |
1 |
| Public input |
1 |
Regional Planning Commissions |
1 |
| Efficient public services |
1 |
|
|
| Link of WI to national agencies |
1 |
|
|
| State permitting process |
1 |
|
|
| WEAKNESSES |
|
|
|
| State Planning |
Number |
Local Jurisdiction |
Number |
|
|
|
|
| No defined direction/plan for
State |
9 |
Zoning |
1 |
| Lack of local control and
coordination |
7 |
Resistance to change |
1 |
| Intergov'tal agreements/comm. |
6 |
Communication |
1 |
| No definition of Comprehensive
Plan |
5 |
|
|
| No consistency of
"planning" |
3 |
|
|
| Control of growth management |
3 |
|
|
| Annexation process |
3 |
|
|
| Legislation promotes sprawl |
3 |
|
|
| Lack of change in existing plans |
2 |
|
|
| Link from plan to implementation |
2 |
|
|
| Farmland preservation |
2 |
|
|
| Planning based on transportation |
1 |
|
|
| Lack of planners showing added
value |
1 |
|
|
| No mandate for planning |
1 |
|
|
