Repeal Wisconsin’s “Smart Growth” Law
By Art Webb – June 10,
2005
The Joint Finance Committee took a very courageous step a few weeks ago in voting to repeal Wisconsin’s “Smart Growth” law. Now the lobbyists are coming from all directions with their cries that this was unfair, while filling the media with false and misleading information about the law, and about “Smart Growth.” Let’s take a closer look at some of these claims.
“The State is mandating the existence of plans but not what is in them.” Section 66.1027(3)(a) of the law states; “every city and village with a population of at least 12,500 shall enact an ordinance that is similar to the model traditional neighborhood development ordinance that is developed under sub. (2)(a).” The law goes on to say, “Traditional neighborhood development means a compact, mixed-use neighborhood where residential, commercial and civic buildings are within close proximity to each other.” The State is forcing communities to accept zoning ordinances that allow neighborhoods to be built with; little or no yards, houses 10 feet apart, tiny narrow streets with little or no parking, alleys in the back of houses, and much more. That’s not mandating what must be in the plan?
“The law forces communities to get public input.” This is true, however only until the public’s desires conflict with the government planners. Proof is only as far as last week’s front page, which stated, “County Executive Kathleen Falk is threatening to veto all zoning petitions, including new subdivision plats, in rural Dane County unless town leaders put more protection guarantees in their land use plans to keep farmland as farmland.” This is tantamount to blackmail. So much for what the local citizens want. What will happen after 2010 when the government takes charge of enforcing community plans?
“Repealing the law will stop communities from planning their future land use.” Communities have been planning their growth for decades, and fortunately, they will continue to do so whether this law exists or not. For example, Stoughton has had a growth plan for over 15 years, and will continue to build upon that plan with or without the law. Repealing the law does not stop any community from creating a plan, or using the plan already created. It only keeps the State from forcing them to create one. Maybe Madison and surrounding communities need a coordinated growth plan, but does Roxbury (pop. 1700), or Nekoosa (2600), or 90% of the other small towns around Wisconsin really need to spend thousands of dollars creating a plan that meets the requirements of the law. Stoughton spent over $80,000 for a consultant to bring their plan up to State standards.
“Support for Smart Growth is wide and deep.” This may be true of the special interest groups, but not citizens. After a local resident mailed copies of Kickapoo’s plan to all its citizens, almost 30% of their adult population turned out at the next town board meeting and voted 2 to 1 to take the towns zoning rights away, thus killing “Smart Growth” in Kickapoo Township. According to “Take Back Wisconsin”, over 50 Towns, Villages, and Counties have pulled out of the grant and multi-jurisdictional process, including the Dane County Towns Association. When people take the time to understand the law, they want nothing to do with it.
“The State shouldn’t be setting policy in the budget bill.” How do you think the law got on the books in the first place? Wisconsin’s “Smart Growth” law was added to the 1999 budget bill in the middle of the night, just hours before going to a vote. Some legislators did not even know the bill was in the budget when they voted on it. The full House or Senate never discussed it. At least the proposal to repeal the law was added in time for debate on the issue.
Maybe Wisconsin needs a “Comprehensive Planning Law”, or maybe not. Let’s repeal this illegitimate one and let the “Smart Growth” advocates propose a new law, or the same one, to the full legislature. Then, after studying and debating the proposal, the legislature can vote on the issue. It should have been done that way in 1999.