|
econsistent with the regional 3
<br /> ystems plans and the approved
<br /> comprehensive plans. Local capi-
<br /> tal improvements programs must
<br /> mesh with the map, text, and cap- °
<br /> ital improvements program out- • _ ,'
<br /> lined in the systems plans. Cities
<br /> generally control the location of '. ".
<br /> new development as long as they '
<br /> keep within the capacity of systems %.o.-.7714-1!:' }i W ' y
<br /> allocated to them. ,?....7,r-t,"•:-.,,,:--.7-- __.-..,,,j.„,„:„.-_.,.- _,-„_,_- t '
<br /> Most of the local plans were ..-:-.4 .
<br /> ' ' � "
<br /> submitted during the early 1980s. -...w...#--•--....:---,,-;o _ � f ..
<br /> The Met Council completed its
<br /> .� .«c ,+ . &,
<br /> ---
<br /> consistencyreviews by1983 and - "'• -4,.. `� -.=
<br /> accepted most of them. Local ju- :. yJ =` ,
<br /> y
<br /> risdictions also are charged with r � „,t-..r:.:___
<br /> 1` .ti "* < Y ; ,,r' ` '” ;
<br /> making whatever adjustments ., .,. = _ _ , -- .,-�'
<br /> are necessitated by quinquennial Agriculture is the best long-term use for much of the region's"rural service area,"
<br /> updates of the metropolitan according to the policies of the Met Council.
<br /> systems plans.
<br /> Some critics complain the con-
<br /> sistency test is too easy to meet. delayed a project. Instead, it has the Met Council lost its most pow-
<br /> The
<br /> owThe consistency review is under- used the act mainly to leverage erful enforcement mechanism.
<br /> taken mainly by local jurisdictions, changes. Keefe likens the power During the heyday of federal
<br /> with the Met Council's role limited to nuclear weapons: "The reason funding, the council applied A-95
<br /> to ruling on the plan's consistency you have them is not because you to review proposals for metropoli-
<br /> with the basic regional systems want to use them; it's because tan commission plans,park grants,
<br /> plans for airports, transportation, you get invited to all the peace art grants, community develop-
<br /> sewers, or parks. On the ques- conferences. Once the council ment block grants, and housing
<br /> tion of a plan's consistency with had a means to force its way to proposals. It used A-95 review
<br /> other regional goals—such as af- the table, the broader regional aggressively to implement its
<br /> fordable housing or environmen- perspective began to have a legiti- fair-share housing policy, which
<br /> tal protection—the council can mate place along with the vari- is written into the Metropolitan
<br /> merely make recommendations. ous particular interests of the Development and Investment
<br /> It has been suggested that the communities involved." Framework, effectively goading
<br /> Met Council's review powers be For example, in a review re- suburban communities into build-
<br /> expanded to enable the council quested by the cities of Minneapo- ing substantial amounts of subsi-
<br /> to initiate the determination of lis and St. Paul of the 4.2 million- dized low-income housing.The
<br /> consistency rather than to re- square-foot Mall of America project council also used A-95 review ef-
<br /> spond passively to the plans sub- in Bloomington, a joint develop- fectively to distribute moderate-
<br /> mitted. ment of Herbert and Melvin Simon income housing throughout the
<br /> Review of Major Developments. and the Ghermezian brothers, Twin Cities and into the suburbs.
<br /> The 1976 Metropolitan Signifi- the council used the Metropolitan Politicians liked A-95, which al-
<br /> cance Act empowers the Met Significance Act to pressure the lowed them to promote a region-
<br /> Council to delay approval of prof- developers to shrink the office ally balanced housing system
<br /> ects deemed to be of metropoli- component by some 2 million while avoiding the political heat:
<br /> tan significance.The council may square feet, comply with traffic "The devil made me do it to
<br /> block new housing projects, shop- mitigation measures, and scrap keep the federal funding."
<br /> ping centers, and other major de- plans for a convention center. More recently, the council lost
<br /> velopments that, in its judgment, A-95 Review and Other Lost another important implementa-
<br /> do not conform with regional Tools. With the demise of much tion tool. In unusual deference
<br /> systems plans. federal funding during the 1980s to a regional growth policy, the
<br /> Although the council has been and the expiration of A-95 review— local HUD (U.S. Department of
<br /> •asked to undertake more than a the federal requirement for re- Housing and Urban Develop-
<br /> dozen such reviews, it has not yet gional review of grant applications— ment) office had been refusing to
<br /> URNi i. IJ/ Febniary 91 23
<br />
|