A Special Report: State of Planning in Wisconsin

Wisconsin Chapter, American Planning Association

WAPA interviewed Wisconsin planners and local officials to answer a number of questions relating to planning's role and effectiveness in Wisconsin. The results of the survey are reported here. Planners and officials were asked to respond to five open-ended questions.

Question 1: Do you think there is a clear understanding of the proper elements and principles of Comprehensive Planning among planners and public officials in the State of Wisconsin?

Based upon the answers given to this question by the diverse group of individuals surveyed, no clear answer emerges. Overall, respondents were split evenly on this issue. However, comparing the responses of planners and public officials, two totally different pictures emerge. The planners who responded were evenly split in evaluating their colleagues, but they were unanimous in their belief that the people they work for do not understand comprehensive planning. In contrast, the public officials indicated, with only one exception, that both local officials and planners do have an understanding of comprehensive planning. The public officials seemed to be less critical of the planners than the planners were of the public officials.

All respondents gave a wide variety of comments with respect to their opinion. Some were rather basic, and they can be used as the foundation for building better planning in Wisconsin. There were comments that there needs to be an agreed-upon standard of what good comprehensive planning is, what the components of a comprehensive plan should be and the appropriate process within which to develop one. This ideal formula should be taught to planners, who in turn would need to educate the public officials they work for. Since the tenure of the public officials is short-term, the planning staff must maintain a level of consistency over time. This may be more important in jurisdictions where the planner is not educated as a planner or is not AICP. In many instances, this education of the public officials makes the process more difficult because they and the planners have different points of view on community issues.

The preparation process is also very important. It needs to be a very public process where the people of the community are able to identify what they think of their own community and try to identify some common ground to work from, especially what is good urban form for their community. Unfortunately, a lot of disinterest is shown at public meetings, because people don't want plans with rules. Once the plan is in place, a process for periodic updates should be pursued, possibly on an annual basis, to keep it current and to properly reflect the goals of the community.

Responses to Question 1

Question 2: Do you think development and public policy decisions in the State of Wisconsin are generally in conformance with adopted comprehensive plans?

Of the 19 respondents to this question on the survey, 13 said, "Yes," and six said, "No." Of those who said yes, four were planners and nine were public officials. On the other hand, all six of those who said "No" were planners. Since all of the public officials said "Yes," and, like their colleagues, they are the ones making these decisions, they would appear to be less critical of themselves and their decisions than were the planners who said "No." This variance is another example of an observation made by one of the respondents to Question 1 that indicated planners and public officials have different points of view on community issues.

The four planners who said, "Yes," had responses that both explicitly and implicitly indicated that if a community has a good comprehensive plan, understands it and is committed to it, then sound land use decisions are made. Just having a good comprehensive plan that only contains recommendations is not enough. The plan needs to have more "teeth" so that a community would have to follow it and not be given a choice to make a political or expeditious decision and not one based on the plan. The nine public officials who said, "Yes," seemed positive about the process that created the plans, the methods and need for updating them and their implementation. One implied that the process created an atmosphere of scrutiny, whereby controversy follows a decision that is not in conformance with the plan unless there is appropriate justification.

The six planners who said "No" did so because of their concerns about the lack of a state plan and county and regional plans that are only advisory and have no "implementation teeth." Even comprehensive plans at the local level are not followed because they are viewed as suggestions; by some, planning is viewed as zoning. The plan needs to be coupled with the usual "tools" of zoning: land regulations and design standards. Zoning at the local level needs to be more creative and flexible and not so restrictive. At the State level, programs such as farmland preservation need to be strengthened. Other regulations from DILHR and DNR, such as those pertaining to on-site sewage systems, need to be viewed in the broader context of a development regulation. What do they do to the implementation of local plans and the promotion of sprawl? The state needs to develop principles and policies for land use development at the state level that balances conservation and development needs, such as in Oregon.

Responses to Question 2

Question 3: What, in your opinion, have been the strengths of planning in your political jurisdiction? In the State of Wisconsin?

Answers to this question varied between planners and public officials with a few exceptions. The majority of the planners focused on specific issues that affected their responsibilities, such as land preservation, assistance from regional agencies, and public input. The elected officials offered broader comments about overall planning efforts and awareness of local issues.

The majority of planners agreed that the strengths of planning are the identification of environmental issues and the enforcement of preservation policies, i.e., identification of environmental corridors, preservation of wetlands, farmland, and other natural amenities. They also agreed that the regional plan commission, particularly SEWRPC, has assisted them in land planning. Local planning efforts have been strong-gathering public input and responding to public interests.

A few of the planners mentioned the positive relationship their community has had with WisDOT, both in terms of DOT's cooperation in local planning efforts and the outcomes of future road expansion. Urban redevelopment was important to two of the planners. Specific comments included the creation of TIF districts and availability of bonding authority that allowed the city to revitalize their central city areas. Local control seemed important for these successes.

Finally, one planner mentioned the importance of the links between Wisconsin and national agencies such as EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the coordination of laws to make housing enforcement fair for all classes. Another planner mentioned that the improved state permitting process has made government easier to work with.

Public officials agreed that the regional plan commissions have made planning in their communities easier and better, redevelopment planning is important in their community, and transportation planning has been critical when making long-term development decisions.

Several officials stated that their relationships with citizens and surrounding communities have positively affected their planning efforts. Most noted the benefits of planning in advance, with master plans or strategic plans, instead of reacting to land use issues. Developing plans has assisted them in making good budgeting and development pattern decisions. Intergovernmental agreements are being explored with adjacent municipalities.

A few officials felt that a greater awareness of Land Use issues, opportunities and consequences, is needed when developing a land use plan. Growth management issues need to be incorporated at the local levels, not just at a regional level.

Overall, they felt the commitment of their local officials and community planners and citizen input were providing a better direction for future growth.

Question 4: What, in your opinion, have been the weaknesses of planning in your political jurisdiction? In the State of Wisconsin?

The overwhelming weakness in planning is the lack of direction at the state level. Both planners and elected officials agreed that a defined process and a long-term plan are needed at the state level. Although some feel the state should mandate the plan, they did not want the state to administer it. Local control is a critical issue to both planners and officials.

Most planners agreed that a state framework is needed to establish standards for planning. A regional approach needs to be established that incorporates local plans. Communication between all levels needs to be improved in order to move forward (the state should provide this direction). In addition to communication, the annexation process needs to be revised to prevent boundary wars and protect natural resources.

Legislation is not consistent-state issues are not always compatible with local issues. Planning laws need to be established which require cooperation between municipalities and are fair to all parties, i.e., cities and towns. Planners do not want to see another layer of control since the state already takes time in their permitting process, but agree some direction is needed between municipalities and throughout the state.

Current zoning codes are not promoting mixed use; instead they are encouraging sprawl, which increases the costs of providing local services. A link should be established between plans, local regulations, and implementation. Too many plans are being adopted but not implemented.

Officials agreed with most of the above statements, emphasizing the need for a vision at the state level. Some felt the state's planning efforts are reactive instead of proactive and have focused more on transportation issues without incorporating other land use issues. Other concerns included the lack of funding available to implement land use plans, the resistance to change by local residents, lack of communication between state and local officials, and the quality of existing land use plans, which are bad and actually encourage sprawl.

Current planning efforts are scattered throughout the state, allowing sprawl to occur; therefore an overall vision and plan are necessary that incorporate local needs.

Responses to Questions 3 and 4

Question 5:What would you suggest is needed to improve the impact of planning in your political jurisdiction? In the State of Wisconsin?

The 19 respondents to this question represented a diverse group of professional planners and elected officials. By far the largest number of comments pertained to state planning. The comments made by elected officials generally targeted local government improvements, while professional planners aimed their comments more often at state solutions to improving planning's impacts. In general, the improvements suggested for state level planning fell into two main categories: (1) Suggestions for better planning, and (2) Making planners more effective.

The State, according to both planners and elected officials, should clarify jurisdictional roles and clarify the responsibilities of each level of government. Elected officials and planners suggested, depending on which level of government they represented, that the States should give more authority to Towns, give more authority to cities and villages, or eliminate towns. The most frequently suggested improvement was to "Reform government structure regarding cities, villages and towns."

Professional planners view consensus on the elements of good planning and the creation of a planning framework as improvements to planning, keeping in mind that area-wide issues should be handled by area-wide government, and local issues by local government. It was clear from the responses to the question that changes to planning enabling laws are needed and that the state has an important, if narrow, role in improving planning.

The planners responding wanted to see WAPA take a more active role in planning, and in planning education, to work to promote planning and to make planners more visible. In general, some respondents believed that improvements in planning at any jurisdictional level were largely dependent on raising the status of the profession.

Based on the responses, there appears to be a growing interest among elected officials in involving citizens more heavily in the planning process. Many respondents cited the need for a collective vision to make planning truly effective. And communication between elected officials and the public, and between units of government is seen as the key to making local government planning work.

There is consensus as well that both citizens and officials need to be educated in the ways of good planning, including the importance of implementation through integration of planning with other local government processes. This educational process should be started in the schools.

A few respondents believed that we are all taking this too seriously and that local government planners should be more realistic in their approach to development and work with the trends, aligning themselves with the elected officials and the power structure. For some, a needed improvement is more money and staff to address planning issues locally.