7.17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SHARING THE BENEFITS AND COSTS S OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN MINNEAPOLIS Terry Jill Lassar Based on a current ULI research pro- sewers, parks, and airports—as burdening septic tanks, some of gram to identify and describe effec- well as for solid waste manage- which drained into the lakes. tive growth management programs, ment,water,housing, and health. Urban sprawl was on the rise. this article is the fifth in a series of State law requires the region's A lack of distinct geographic fea- reports on growth management ap- 189 cities and townships to adopt tures encouraged development proaches used by local governments. comprehensive plans consistent to spill out in all directions. (Not From time to time, Urban Land with the council's regional systems even the Mississippi River, which will continue to publish reports on plans.In the mid-1970s, the council divides St. Paul and Minneapolis, other programs.—Editor adopted a growth management poses a barrier because it is so program that steers development amply bridged.) As former Min- he Metropolitan Council to designated areas. neapolis mayor Arthur Naftalin Tof the Twin Cities metro- The council's real strength, ac- has observed, "The ease with which politan area is the envy of cording to its former chair, Steve the land radiating from Minneap- 0 every council of governments Keefe,is that its powers are limited olis and St.Paul can be developed (COG)in the United States. Why? to providing concrete solutions is a fundamental cause of both to specific and widely recognized the region's problems and the Because it has real power. For more than 20 years, the Met problems affecting the region. rise of a regional identity." (Mak- Council has been directing re- "Regional government in this ing One Community Out of Many, area,"says Keefe, "is used as an published by the Metropolitan gional planning and growth man agement in its domain—a seven- instrument to accomplish certain Council, 1986)Among the 25 county area centering around narrow regional goals, not as an largest U.S. metropolitan areas, end for its own sake." the Twin Cities region weighs in Minneapolis and St. Paul, encom- The council's growth manage- with one of the lowest densities. passing 3,000 square miles and having a population of 2.2 million, ment program is an instrument The average suburban jurisdic- roughly half the state's total pop for fostering orderly growth. Un- tion has a population of 20,000. ulation. Whereas most COGS like many fast-growing jurisdictions As a consequence of low-density are primarily advisory bodies, the that have adopted techniques to development patterns, cities were Met Council wields effective im- dampen growth, the Twin Cities forced to build facilities (sewer plementation and enforcement area has taken a consistently trunks in particular)at tremendous tools.Most COGs have depended prodevelopment stance. expense for scattered, small pock- on pass-through moneys from ets of urban development.Roads, now-defunct federal planning A Little History water lines, and sewer lines pro- grants and on voluntary contribu- vided haphazardly to serve new tions from participating local gov- In the 1960s, a series of related development burdened many ernments. Financed by an area- problems confronted the region. suburban jurisdictions with infra- wide property tax, the Met The most pressing issue was sew- structure capacities that greatly Council is relatively independent. age disposal. The disposal system exceeded needs. The Met Council develops re- was operating at maximum capac- The outward movement of peo- gional long-range plans for the ity and newer suburbs could not pie and industry caused a precipi- four basic metropolitan service gain entry.Burgeoning popula- tous drop in the population of the systems—highways and transit, tions in far-out suburbs were over- two central cities after 1950.The III 20 February 91/ 'JLii fl 1T ,Ji ,