32 ELR 10667 | Environmental Law Reporter | copyright © 2002 | All rights reserved

Local Sustainability Efforts in the United States: The Progress Since Rio

[Editors' Note: In June 1992, at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, the nations of the world formally endorsed the concept of sustainable development and agreed to a plan of action for achieving it. One of those nations was the United States. In August 2002, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, these nations will gather in Johannesburg to review progress in the 10-year period since UNCED and to identify steps that need to be taken next. In anticipation of the Rio + 10 summit conference, Prof. John C. Dernbach is editing a book that assesses progress that the United States has made on sustainable development in the past 10 years and recommends next steps. The book, which is scheduled to be published by the Environmental Law Institute in June 2002, is comprised of chapters on various subjects by experts from around the country. This Article will appear as a chapter in that book. Further information on the book will be available at www.eli.org or by calling 1-800-433-5120 or 202-939-3844.]

Prof. Jonathan D. Weiss is the Director of the George Washington University Center on Sustainable Growth. Professor Weiss previously served in the Clinton Administration—first at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as Senior Brownfields Counsel and then with the Office of the Vice President as an advisor on community redevelopment and sustainable growth issues.

[32 ELR 10667]

I. Introduction

If we want to think about changes in local sustainability over the last 10 years, perhaps the best place to start is with Al Gore. In 1992, just before the Rio Earth Summit and before he was to be tapped as a vice presidential candidate, then-Senator Gore published a treatise on the environment called Earth in the Balance.¹ The book was rightfully hailed as a work of "statesmanship, evangelism, and scientific exposition."² While visionary in its scope and prescient in its analysis of such issues as global warming and energy alternatives, the book failed to mention the words "brownfields," "sustainable communities," "livable communities," "new urbanism," or "smart growth." In short, it failed to mention what would become a national movement since the 1992 Earth Summit.

What a difference 10 years makes! Al Gore would end up championing "livable communities" as a part of his domestic agenda as vice president and later as a plank in his 2000 presidential campaign.³ The Republican presidential candidate, George W. Bush, also claimed brownfields redevelopment as an important priority and vowed that we need "smart growth."⁴ The word "brownfields" was not even in the dictionary in 1992; it achieved that honor in 1999.⁵ The term "smart growth" did not exist in 1992. It is now arguably a movement.

This Article argues that local sustainability has begun to show progress in the United States over the past 10 years. The local movement that is taking place is doing so at the neighborhood, municipal, and, most important, regional levels. Measuring this progress against Agenda 21 of the United Nations (U.N.) Conference on Environment and Development⁶ and international statements on sustainable development, however, is extremely difficult. Those statements are vague on the topic of local sustainability—generally promoting municipality-based local Agenda 21s—and the efforts in the United States are in many ways different and more nuanced than those envisioned. In the United States, communities are increasingly supporting some of the policies behind local sustainability, but they are not following the Agenda 21 processes. While the implementation of local sustainability principles here may often appear consistent with suggestions made in Agenda 21, communities likely made no conscious connection to Agenda 21 in developing their plans.

A core idea behind sustainable development—and in much of the local action toward sustainability—is that the goals of social equity, economic competitiveness, and environmental protection should be integrated in planning for the future. In the United States, policies promoting sustainability have arisen most often out of concerns about the effects of sprawl and thus most sustainability practices have been increasingly referred to as "smart growth." The changing American attitude toward growth and quality of life has brought about some reforms at the federal, state, regional, and municipal level, but they have not yet been fully expressed in law. Many places still have fragmented governance structures that make cross-boundary and regional solutions difficult, particularly as they relate to social equity. Hence, despite the progress and the laying of groundwork for future action, we are still far short of the systemic [32 ELR 10668] changes at all levels that need to take place to help bring local sustainability to life.

II. Local Sustainability: Evolving From Agenda 21

The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development⁷ and Agenda 21 do not cover local sustainability in a comprehensive fashion. What is covered is mainly limited to municipalities (or "local authorities"). Still, the general statements on sustainable development made in the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 are certainly applicable to local sustainability. Agenda 21 sums up the goals of sustainable development when it encourages governments to pursue "development that is economically efficient, socially equitable, and responsible and environmentally sound."⁸ This is popularly referred to as the "three Es" of sustainable development and can be inferred to apply to local sustainability efforts as well. Moreover, Agenda 21 emphasizes localities when it encourages "delegating planning and management responsibilities to the lowest level of public authority consistent with effective action."⁹

The Rio Declaration lists 27 principles to guide decisionmaking to promote sustainable development. While not tied together in a comprehensive fashion, a few of these principles bear particular attention in the discussion of local sustainability. Foremost is the call for integrated decisionmaking: "In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and not be considered in isolation from it."¹⁰ Closely related is the necessity to be future oriented—to consider the developmental and environmental needs of future generations.¹¹ Another important principle with particular applicability at the local level is public participation and awareness in the creation of an environmentally sustainable society.¹² Finally, the "polluter-pays" principle—a powerful tool for sustainable development—can be used at all levels of government.¹³

Agenda 21, while focusing much more on national-level implementation, does emphasize the importance of implementation at the local level. "Because so many of the problems and solutions being addressed by Agenda 21 have their roots in local activities, the participation and cooperation of local authorities will be a determining factor in fulfilling its objectives."¹⁴ Thus, Agenda 21 calls on localities to consult with and take advantage of access to key stakeholders in order to arrive at consensus on local strategies for achieving its objectives.

Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations and private enterprises and adopt a "local Agenda 21." Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and local, civic, community, business, and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies. The process of consultation would increase household awareness of sustainable development issues.¹⁵

Agenda 21 stated that "by 1996 most local authorities in each country should have undertaken a consultative process with their populations and achieved a consensus on 'a local Agenda 21' for their community."¹⁶

More specifically, Agenda 21 promotes sound land use planning through fostering effective public participation,¹⁷ improving coordination of decisionmaking,¹⁸ reducing harmful emissions,¹⁹ using fiscal incentives and land use control measures to promote more rational and environmentally sound land use,²⁰ encouraging development patterns that reduce transport demand,²¹ encouraging the use of energy resources in ways that respect human health,²² and adopting of improved systems for the interpretation and integrated analysis of data on land use and land resources.²³ Additionally, Agenda 21 contains other ideas relevant to local sustainability including creating partnerships between government and the private sector²⁴ and the importance of providing effective legal and regulatory frameworks²⁵ for integrating environment and development into decisionmaking.

Coordination between local governments within a metro region is critical to the development of effective integrated decisionmaking. In the United States, local governments usually have land use planning powers within their boundaries as well as the right and responsibility to tax for the provision of schools, water and sewer, police and fire protection. As will be described in more detail, this often has resulted in individual municipalities aggressively protecting their self-interests, and little or no coordination of services or land uses throughout a region. In a critical oversight, Agenda 21 fails to address this cross-boundary problem, except for one passage in Chapter 7:

Some metropolitan areas extend over the boundaries of several political and/or administrative entities (counties and municipalities) even though they conform to a continuous urban system. In many cases this political heterogeneity hinders the implementation of comprehensive environmental management programmes.²⁶

At the international level, the United Nations has continued to support local sustainability, albeit unevenly, since 1992. In 1996, it convened the Second U.N. Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II). At that conference, nations, local governments, and nongovernmental organizations strongly endorsed—in rhetoric at least—the concept of sustainable urban development. The conference ended with the approval of the "Habitat Agenda," which was described [32 ELR 10669] by Habitat II organizers as a "guide for the development of sustainable human settlements in the world's cities, towns and villages into the first two decades of the next century."²⁷

The Habitat II conference generated many recommendations similar to those contained in Agenda 21, although the Habitat Agenda more strongly emphasizes decentralization and strengthening local authorities,²⁸ more explicitly encourages the use of public-private partnerships,²⁹ and recognizes the importance of regionalism with a separate section dedicated to metropolitan planning and management. The Habitat Agenda states that "in some countries, the lack of a metropolitan-wide authority or effective metropolitan-wide cooperation creates difficulties in urban management."³⁰ The Agenda also explicitly recognizes the problem of sprawl, noting that "many cities are using peripheral land for urban-related purposes in a wasteful manner while existing serviced land and infrastructure may not be adequately developed and used."³¹ The Agenda provides only general suggestions on how to solve these problems—recommending the "sustainable . . . land utilization and improved management of urban growth"³² and the strengthening of "the capacity and mandates of metropolitan authorities."³³

Continuing its recognition of local sustainability, the U.N. General Assembly in 1997 noted, "the efforts of local authorities are making Agenda 21 and pursuit of sustainable development a reality at the local level.³⁴ . . . Local Agenda 21 programs should be . . . encouraged."³⁵ "Local-level strategies and plans have proved far more successful than those at the national level in terms of making a direct impact."³⁶ Culminating several years of work, the U.N. Center for Human Settlements in 2001 published The State of the World's Cities³⁷ —the center's first attempt to monitor, analyze, and report from the perspective of cities. Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, called the report a "milestone" in the efforts of the United Nations by using the city, rather than the country, as a basic unit of analysis. Annan averred: "Sustainable urban development is one of the most pressing challenges facing the human community in the 21st Century."³⁸ The State of the World's Cities does briefly recognize the importance of urban regions (rather than cities, themselves) by recommending the establishment of "effective metropolitan-wide planning and management,"³⁹ and the integration of "physical with economic planning and recognition of urban regions and eco-systems as geographic planning modules."⁴⁰ However, the focus is clearly on the municipal level.

There remains a fundamental mismatch between the geographic reality of urban regions and the municipality-based approach used by the United Nations. While giving more emphasis to localissues in the past 10 years, it is still not enough and one of the most significant weaknesses in the U.N. approach is its continued emphasis on municipalities instead of on broader metropolitan regions. Agenda 21 only briefly recognizes the need for metropolitan solutions,⁴¹ and the Habitat Agenda recognizes this more explicitly, but provides only general solutions.⁴²

Cities and their metropolitan areas—in the United States and abroad—are increasingly the places where people live and economic production takes place. Since 1950, the world's urban population has risen from under 300 million to 2.6 billion persons. Within five years, one-half of the world will be living in urban areas—a twentyfold increase over 1900. By 2030, an estimated 70% of the world will be urban dwellers—with most of the growth taking place in developing countries.⁴³

Cities are growing not only in population, but also geographically as they sprawl outward. These areas have a tremendous impact on the environment and local sustainability. According to a recent Johns Hopkins study, cities generate close to 80% of all carbon dioxide and account for 75% of industrial wood use. Urban pollution affects the health of urban residents severely—more than a billion people, mostly in cities, are at risk due to atmospheric pollution.⁴⁴ Moreover, poverty and social divisions are most severe in cities, with the poor suffering most from pollution's ill effects. And urban areas and countries pay a collective economic price. The financial loss imposed by traffic congestion alone in Bangkok, Thailand, for instance, stands at $ 272 million.⁴⁵

The urban design and land use decisions made today in countries where car use is still low will have an enormous impact on a range of issues, such as global warming. In the United States, in addition to widening economic and social divisions, our sprawling growth patterns have led to increased traffic, air pollution, water pollution, water consumption, and the destruction of wetlands. The potential effect globally if a similar pattern of land use is adopted in developing countries is astounding.

[32 ELR 10670]

There is a growing recognition of metropolitan areas as organic wholes and as a critical geographic level for achieving sustainability. As Prof. Lamont C. Hempel writes:

What makes the metropolitan approach particularly promising for building sustainable communities is its scale of exchange: it is big enough to capture key ecological, social, and economic interdependencies, yet small enough to provide a sense of place and social embeddedness. It is at the metropolitan level that sustainability concepts appear most operational and meaningful. This is the level where human communities interact most tellingly with nonhuman nature. It is the primary area in which conflicting ideals of community, liberty, and ecology will have to be reconciled with the forces of economic globalization.⁴⁶

The smart growth movement in the United States is beginning to embody in the most integrated way these regional sustainability principles. At its best, it offers an attractive alternative to worsening sprawl at the regional level by emphasizing broad-based planning, more compact and higher density development, greater choice in transportation and housing, and mixed land uses—all practices recommended by Agenda 21.⁴⁷ Using these practices, smart growth can advance the "three Es" of sustainability—environmental protection, economic competitiveness, and equity.⁴⁸ While individual municipalities have made great progress on certain sustainability issues and must continue to do so, smart growth planning is much more effective at the regional level. The problems of growth often transcend local boundaries, with municipalities ill-equipped to tackle the broad issues involved. Decisions made in one jurisdiction can have serious consequences in a neighboring or nearby jurisdiction.

In particular, the social equity implications in the United States of fragmented governance and sprawl deserve attention. Social equity is considered an indispensable requirement by the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21,⁴⁹ but there is little discussion of how it applies on the local level. In the United States, often, as the wealthier residents move from older neighborhoods, they leave behind the poor and minorities in areas with little access to jobs, a declining tax base, and weakening school systems. Communities and regions across the United States continue to be largely divided along economic and racial lines, both physically and socially. And low-income people—especially minorities—continue to be disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards in urban areas. Nationwide, for instance, black children from poor families are five times more likely to have dangerous lead blood levels than wealthier white children.⁵⁰ Social inequity impacts not only environmental health, but economic health as well. A recent study concluded that economic competitiveness of a region as a whole suffers when there is widening inequality within a region.⁵¹

The full range of possible sustainability practices at the local level in the United States is not contemplated in the international statements on sustainable development. Local sustainability means not only sustainability at the municipal level but at the neighborhood and more importantly at the regional level as well. And what takes place at the local level is influenced by policies and practices at all levels—in addition to the neighborhood, municipal, and regional levels, there must also be strong focus on the national and especially state level policies. Both laws and funding at the national and state levels shape the contours of local governmental power.

Vertical and horizontal coordination can correct conflicting policies, create more efficient governance, and better enable effective integrated decisionmaking. Part of the problem in the United States is conflicting messages between local, state, and federal policies, with some policies encouraging, and others impeding, sustainable growth. Laws and regulations at every level of government need to foster sustainable development. National and international practices can support sustainable development, but at the local level where most implementation happens, more nuanced and effective locally suitable policies can be created. Using public participation and education in the development of sustainable practices can lead to better understanding and greater support of regional, national, and international efforts by the citizenry.

III. Assessment

The United States has made general progress in moving forward with local sustainability efforts, but much more needs to be done.⁵² Creativity at the local level has blossomed, though not in the actual form of local Agenda 21s. In particular, there has been a flourishing of public/private metropolitan and smart growth dialogues—which, however, mirror [32 ELR 10671] well the call for such partnerships and public dialogue in Agenda 21.⁵³ Often, before turning to the regional level, the public expresses interest at the neighborhood or municipal level. Many communities—neighborhood, municipal, and regional—have undertaken broad-based planning efforts to move toward sustainability. The smart growth movement has energized this effort. Still, while the groundwork is being laid by these expressions of support, there has not yet been a major change in laws at the various levels of government—including the national and state levels—to accompany this shift. Indeed, many existing laws and regulations at every level of government still encourage unsustainable growth.

A. National Efforts

At the national level since 1992, while not dramatically shifting policies, the United States has recognized the importance of sustainable development at the local level. The federal government has promoted discussion of policies and has enacted or extended various measures which promote the goals of local sustainability. For instance, President William J. Clinton's Administration created the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) and the U.S. Congress launched an active bipartisan Senate Smart Growth Caucus and House Livable Communities Task Force.

In particular, since 1992, the Clinton Administration and Congress have made significant progress on promoting the redevelopment of brownfields and transportation alternatives. For example, between 1993 and 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency funded over 1,900 site assessments and leveraged over $ 2.3 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funds.⁵⁴ A tax incentive for brownfields redevelopment, passed as part of the 1997 Taxpayers Relief Act,⁵⁵ was extended in 1999. In December 2001, Congress passed—and President George W. Bush signed into law—further brownfields legislation, doubling the amount of funding available, providing liability protection to small businesses that contributed only small amounts of pollution, and clarifying the bounds of liability for new developers.⁵⁶

In transportation policy, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21),⁵⁷ enacted into law in 1998, helped pave the way for major increases in funding for alternative transportation. Between the 1993 and 2001 fiscal years, funding for mass transit increased 66% and funding for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program, which improved air quality by making traffic flows more efficient, increased 176%.

These measures connect to local sustainability in several ways. The brownfields measures include incentives and tools for redevelopment inolder areas instead of encouraging greenfield development. This is an example of government using a fiscal incentive to promote more rational and environmentally sound land use, as recommended in Chapter 7 of Agenda 21.⁵⁸ Brownfields redevelopment can also promote the "three Es" of sustainable development by encouraging environmental cleanup and the preservation of green space, promoting economic competitiveness by building on existing infrastructure and fostering business expansion, and enhancing social equity by encouraging job creation in areas that need it most.

Meanwhile, increased funding for mass transit helped support Agenda 21's recommendation for promoting urban high-occupancy public transport⁵⁹ and the CMAQ program implements Agenda 21's call for more effective traffic management⁶⁰ and the limiting of harmful emissions.⁶¹ However, despite these successes, the vast majority of federal transportation spending continues to be spent by states in ways that promote highway construction and driving.

Over time, the PCSD provided an increasing amount of its focus to local sustainability issues. In Chapter 4 of its 1996 report, the PCSD identified sustainable communities as a key area, but there was no recommendation that localities implement Agenda 21s. In fact, local Agenda 21s were not even mentioned. It seemed as if a conscious decision had been made to distance the report from local efforts abroad.

The report was, however, ambitious in some respects—Chapter 4 noted that the United States must "encourage people to work together to create healthy communities where natural and historic resources are preserved, jobs are available, sprawl is contained, neighborhoods are secure, education is lifelong, transportation and health care are accessible, and all citizens have the opportunity to improve the quality of their lives."⁶² Recommendations included the redesign of cities to "promote accessibility, decrease sprawl, reduce energy costs, and foster the creation of built environments on a human scale."⁶³ The report also stressed the need for cross-cutting and cross-boundary partnerships to advance toward sustainability and the need for participation of all sectors, including the most disadvantaged. In a sense, the authors may have implicitly recognized the limitations to the municipality-based emphasis of Agenda 21 and other U.N. documents. Indeed, the report's call for increased metropolitan cooperation represented a significant advance over the U.N. approach.

The PCSD report helped inform policy within and outside the Administration. Following a specific recommendation from the report the National Association of Counties and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, for instance, established a Joint Center on Sustainable Communities. Mayors and county executives, usually representing overlapping geographic areas, had not been known for their cooperative efforts. The center has been providing local elected officials with assistance in developing cross-boundary partnerships.⁶⁴ While no panacea, the center has worked hard to promote integrated decisionmaking within metropolitan regions.

[32 ELR 10672]

In the spring of 1999, the PCSD issued its final report, which placed even greater weight on sustainability at the local level. The report stressed the importance of collaboration as part of an integrated planning process, noting that, "communities, governments, and businesses can form a powerful degree of consensus-building."⁶⁵ The report identified five strategic areas of sustainable community development that were producing benefits: green infrastructure, land use and development, community revitalization and reinvestment, retail enterprise and community development, and materials reuse and resource efficiency.

While this was to be the final act of the PCSD, the Clinton Administration stressed these efforts through its "Livable Communities" initiative. Vice President Gore first raised this topic in a speech to the Brookings Institution in 1998, when he called for "growth consistent with local values."⁶⁶ In early 1999, Vice President Gore announced a series of proposals to be included in the Administration's budget requests to Congress. The proposal receiving the most attention was the "Better Community Bonds" initiative, designed to allow communities to purchase bonds to finance efforts to promote brownfields redevelopment, protect open space, and improve water quality. However, the proposal did not pass Congress and there has been little attempt to revive it within the current Bush Administration.

As the first national politician to do so, Vice President Gore deserves much credit for raising these issues. But while this federal attention certainly elevated the issue in the national media, it did not tackle some of the fundamental federal barriers to sustainable communities. Nor has Congress taken on the tough questions.

Many federal laws continue to be obstacles to local sustainability. The federal mortgage interest deduction favors wealthier home buyers over those who are less wealthy, renters, multi-family property owners, and people who rehabilitate existing structures. The former category tends to live in the suburbs, while the latter categories represent more urban housing choices. Also, the overwhelming majority of transportation funding still goes to highways, and there are no disincentives to build new roads or, conversely, incentives to channel funds to existing infrastructure. There also is still no tax on gasoline to discourage the persistent over-reliance on the automobile. The federal tax on gasoline pays for construction and maintenance of the interstate highway system.⁶⁷ All user revenues combined meet 91% of the cost for highway construction, maintenance, and administration⁶⁸ —but these outlays do not pay for the costs of pollution, health problems, or loss of open space. Meanwhile, federal funding in general continues to go to municipalities and not to regions.

B. State Efforts

In the last decade, there has been a wave of reform in land use planning at the state level. This reform builds on much that had taken place in the previous two decades. Prior to 1992, several states had recognized the importance of integrated land use planning. Nine states—Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington State—had adopted such initiatives, which were mostly state land use and growth management laws and open space preservation initiatives. The most recognized and effective was the effort in Oregon, which included "urban growth boundaries" and a regional government in Portland.

Since 1992, a number of states have been added to the roster or have enhanced their existing laws, including: Delaware (Land Use Planning Act, 1996)⁶⁹; Maine (Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Act, 1999)⁷⁰; Maryland (Smart Growth Areas Act, 1997)⁷¹; Pennsylvania (Growing Greener/Growing Smarter Act, 1999 and 2000)⁷²; Tennessee (Growth Boundaries/Annexation Act, 1998)⁷³; Utah (Quality Growth Act, 1999)⁷⁴; and Wisconsin (Comprehensive Planning and Smart Growth Act, 1999).⁷⁵ The Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin Acts require or encourage localities to coordinate their land use plans with state planning agencies and/or neighboring municipalities. The Maine, Maryland, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin Acts provide incentives either directly to developers or to the locality to channel growth along existing infrastructure or in designated growth areas. Each of these measures advances sustainable land use planning and management, as recommended by Agenda 21—a step toward the Rio Declaration's broader goal of integrated decisionmaking.⁷⁶

More than one-half of the nation's governors have vowed to confront growth challenges and the issue is now at the top of the agenda of many state legislatures. Maryland, under the leadership of Gov. Parris Glendening (D), has taken a lead in smart growth. Using an incentive-based rather than a regulatory approach, the state effectively employs its tax laws to influence growth patterns by directing state investment into specific locations. This is an example of the Rio Declaration's polluter-pays principle, as well as Agenda 21's more specific recommendation for "removing or reducing those subsidies that do not conform with sustainable [32 ELR 10673] development objectives."⁷⁷ For developments outside of older cities and towns or locally designated growth areas, the state will not pay for roads, water and sewage, schools, and other infrastructure costs. For developments in existing communities, the state will pay all of these costs and provide incentives such as tax credits, grants, infrastructure assistance, low-interest mortgages and loans, and mapping and other technical assistance. These incentives are examples of Agenda 21's suggestion for the "reforming or recasting [of] existing structures of economic and fiscal incentives to meet environment and development objectives."⁷⁸

Even with all these changes, states have still not dealt with some fundamental barriers to sustainable development. Too often, smart growth initiatives have addressed the environmental problems of sprawl without also addressing the economic and equity aspects, leaving untouched the fundamental framework of state and local government law. Such laws often tilt the playing field toward sprawl and inequitable growth. They do so by encouraging the creation of largely autonomous municipalities and requiring that these municipalities raise revenue by property taxes to support services within their boundaries.⁷⁹ This results in neighboring communities competing for property wealth through a tactic known as "fiscal zoning." As Myron Orfield explains:

Through fiscal zoning, cities deliberately develop predominantly expensive homes and commercial industrial properties with low service needs and limit less costly housing and entry to the community by the people who normally buy it. In this way, these communities attempt to limit social need and the demand on tax base that it can engender.⁸⁰

This zoning fuels further sprawl, makes regions less economically competitive as a whole, and undercuts attempts at intermunicipal cooperation on important environmental, economic, and social problems.

Many of the state laws use incentives to foster cooperation but do not require it. While the new smart growth laws are a step in the right direction and lay the political groundwork for change, it has become clear that stronger state laws are needed to require regional cooperation and promote true local sustainability. Strong regional land use planning and regional tax-sharing, together, could go a long way in promoting equitable, environmentally sound, and economically feasible development.

C. Regional Efforts

A promising advance toward local sustainability—thus far short of structural change—has been the increase in new regional cooperation and informal governance processes. Regions are beginning to recognize that they are stronger united than they are divided. Different regions are using a wide range of strategies to better coordinate themselves, including contractual arrangements between municipalities, regional cooperation mandated by state or federal law, and voluntary civic organizations. Civic organizations can often increase the effectiveness and long-term viability of intergovernmental agreements and state and federal laws. In many cases, civic groups began the push that resulted in state and federal laws requiring regional cooperation. Regions most often cooperate around high-priced services that benefit the entire region, such as sewers, water, airports, and transit. But there are few examples of regional cooperation for services that would result in redistribution of benefits, such as education, housing, or regional revenue-sharing—or examples of regional coordination of land use planning.⁸¹ The lack of laws requiring such cooperation or coordination remains a major obstacle to sustainable development efforts.

One mechanism used by many localities to promote regional cooperation is the "intergovernmental agreement" (IGA)—contractual agreements between municipalities. IGAs enable governments to cooperate in performing their public functions, including provision of municipal services and regional planning, "although actual consolidation of the governmental agencies is not possible."⁸² They have been used between neighboring cities, between cities and counties, or for large groups of municipalities—they can be tailored to the needs and purpose of the participating localities.⁸³ For example, Oregon has used IGAs to implement the state requirements for urban growth boundaries.⁸⁴

Perhaps the most dramatic change in the last decade at the regional level was in Atlanta. In response to the potential loss of federal highway funds due to noncompliance with the Clean Air Act (CAA),⁸⁵ coupled with the leadership of Gov. Roy Barnes (D), the Georgia Legislature in 1998 created the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA). GRTA's mandate is to govern transportation policy as it relates to air quality. The law gives the organization the power to build, operate, and maintain public transportation systems, other land transportation projects, and air quality control facilities. It controls all points of highway and road access through its ability to deny road access permits,⁸⁶ and is empowered to cut off federal and state funds for a local government if that locality fails to comply with GRTA plans.⁸⁷ In a sense, GRTA furthers the Agenda 21 goals of limiting harmful omissions⁸⁸ and encouraging development patterns that reduce transport demand.⁸⁹ However, some of the drawbacks of the approach are that citizens lack the power to challenge GRTA's decisions or to challenge an act by a local government that is inconsistent with GRTA. Overall, it is still unclear how effective GRTA will be once it wields its powers.⁹⁰

[32 ELR 10674]

The Minneapolis-St. Paul region has a Metropolitan Council, established by the state legislature in 1964, which represents the seven-county region and oversees regional planning. Its oversight includes transportation planning, parks, wastewater treatment and affordable housing programs. In 1995, the state legislature adopted the Livable Communities Act, a three-part program administered by the Metropolitan Council, which is to create more sustainable communities, especially in terms of transit and job access. Participating communities receive funding for brownfields cleanup and other initiatives to promote in-fill development.⁹¹ The council has also adopted Metro 2040, a regional growth strategy that encourages compact growth in already developed areas, preservation of agricultural lands, and revitalization of the urban core.

Two of the most oft-cited civic regional efforts during the last decade are in the Silicon Valley Network and the Wasatch region in Utah. Both efforts use public participation, public-private partnerships, and the use of informational tools to foster a framework for change in their regions.

The Silicon Valley Network in California established in 1992, has instituted the Joint Venture Silicon Valley Project to tackle regional quality of life issues, including education, crime, economic development, and transportation. Joint Venture's Vision Leadership Team, comprised of a diverse group of regional citizens from the business, government, and nonprofit communities, has collected input from over 2,000 residents to help shape the Silicon Valley 2010 vision.⁹² A framework for this vision focuses on an innovative economy, livable environment, inclusive society, and regional stewardship, with an index launched to measure and publicize quantitative changes in these areas each year.⁹³ One example of Joint Venture's efforts is its "Smart Permit": 27 cities and 2 counties have adopted a unified building code, and 6 of these cities are working on a paperless permitting process. Also, the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, which represents 130 of the largest private sector employers in the area, developed a coalition among business, government, civic, and environmental organizations, and has worked with local communities to promote transit-oriented development and help provide affordable housing through a housing trust fund.

In 1997, Envision Utah, a group dedicated to regional growth issues in the 10-county Wasatch area (including Salt Lake City and surrounding area), was formed and includes over 100 community partners from the academic, private, public, and religious sectors. Envision Utah's purpose is to create and be an advocate for a publicly supported growth strategy that will preserve a high quality of life, natural environment, and economic vitality. During the past three years it has completed an in-depth study and a baseline analysis of future growth, held over 100 public workshops, commissioned a million-dollar public awareness campaign, and proposed future quality growth strategies for public consideration. Based on citizen input, the initiative is moving forward with communities to implement a quality growth strategy which includes promoting alternative transportation along with the adoption of smart growth tools.⁹⁴ In November 2000, three of Utah's largest counties passed an increase of 0.25 cent sales tax for public transportation. However, while promoting education and potential attitudinal shifts, the initiative has not yet led to any new major state laws, and two highway projects in the region both appear to be moving forward.

While primarily outside the rubric of government, these regional-oriented processes are often receiving support from and working with governmental agencies. It is hoped that they are laying the groundwork for substantial systemic change. On the question of process alone, they already seem to be having a tremendous impact as models of consensus-building.

D. Municipal Level

Following the Rio Summit, many municipalities across the world, working with the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), responded to the challenge to develop local Agenda 21s. But how Agenda 21 could be applied locally was not and has never been made completely clear. Despite the vagueness of Agenda 21 (and in some cases because of it, which provided great flexibility), since 1992 more than 6,200 local governments in over 100 countries have developed Agenda 21-based environmental strategies (many of which are explicitly referred to as "Local Agenda 21s").⁹⁵

ICLEI has defined a process for the developmentand implementation of Local Agenda 21 plans, emphasizing multi-stakeholder participation and oversight. The plan should include an assessment of current conditions, a defined vision for the future of the community, and community-based monitoring and annual evaluation of its implementation.⁹⁶ The implementation of Local Agenda 21 plans by localities abroad has produced progress in creating sustainable development plans, and often improvement on specific indicators.⁹⁷ However, there are still many barriers to the full implementation of the goals of Agenda 21, the most important being support and consistency in policies at higher levels of government.

[32 ELR 10675]

While aware of Agenda 21, U.S. municipalities are not following the Agenda 21 process. The term "Agenda 21" has simply never taken root in the United States. However, representatives from 80 U.S. municipalities attended a meeting in June 2001 sponsored by ICLEI in preparation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, and ICLEI has no doubt provided municipalities with valuable information, resources, and networking opportunities.

In a recent assessment of Local Agenda 21 programs globally, ICLEI found several barriers to developing effective Agenda 21 plans that have been experienced by participating municipalities. These include the lack of sufficient capacity and resources of local governmental legislative or fiscal authorities to institute changes, a lack of political will, jurisdictional conflicts, and compartmentalization of government. The assessment emphasizes that cooperation at all levels of government is vital in implementing effective sustainable development practices.⁹⁸

While not engaging in Agenda 21 processes, municipalities in the United States are beginning to show great creativity and innovation on sustainability. They are using a variety of Agenda 21-recommended practices, including citizen participation, the polluter-pays principle, improved coordination of decisionmaking, reducing harmful emissions, fiscal incentives to promote more rational and environmentally sound land use, and the fostering of development patterns that reduce transportdemand. They are also beginning to work together on various causes, such as the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign. Launched in 1993, the effort includes over 100 U.S. cities and counties that have made a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their communities.⁹⁹

The most exciting city to look at for evidence of change in the last decade is Chicago.¹⁰⁰ According to the Washington Post, "Once known for meat-packing, smokestacks, and skyscrapers, [Chicago] wants a new image as the nation's greenest metropolis."¹⁰¹ Since Mayor Richard Daley (D) took office in 1989, the city has planted thousands of trees, created more than 100 miles of bicycle paths, installed solar panels on several city museums, invested in brownfields redevelopment, created a roof garden on top of city hall, and is planning to retrofit 15 million square feet of public buildings to make them more energy-efficient. Within five years, the city expects to get 20% of its electricity from renewable sources. Each of these initiatives can be found in Agenda 21: decreasing harmful emissions,¹⁰² using fiscal incentives to promote more rational and environmentally sound land use,¹⁰³ encouraging nonmotorized modes of transport by providing safe cycleways,¹⁰⁴ and using more energy-efficient technology and alternative/renewable energy sources.¹⁰⁵

Chicago has also used green principles in several partnerships with the private sector. It subsidized the cleanup of brownfields and construction of a solar panel manufacturing plant, which will use solar and geothermal energy, a rooftop garden, and a natural habitat to filter stormwater. Additionally, as part of the incentive package to lure the Boeing Company to Chicago, the city offered $ 2 million to retrofit their new headquarters for energy-efficiency. And in yet another example, the city and Commonwealth Edison Company are helping pay for the construction of five model "green" homes for low- and moderate-income families on city-owned land. The housing will feature rooftop gardens and solar-powered heating and cooling.¹⁰⁶

And the city is moving to greater cooperation with its neighbors. Mayor Daley has begun meetings with other mayors in the region and a business-led planning process called "Chicago Metropolis 2020" has spearheaded an effort to promote greater regional cooperation and smart growth planning in the area—another excellent example of public-private partnerships and a step toward integrated decisionmaking.

Changes in the law have begun to accompany this shift in policy in Chicago. The state passed a brownfields law in 1997 to provide tax credits to businesses who cleaned contaminated industrial sites¹⁰⁷ and has changed its transportation funding to provide for more infill and public transit investment. Additionally, Chicago designed an "Environmental Loan Program" to help small businesses do environmental assessments and apply for cleanup funding.¹⁰⁸ Although the state has not yet approved a smart growth law, what is more important, according to Chicago 2020 head George Ranney, is that smart growth advocates are "laying the attitudinal groundwork for real systemic change in the next few years."

ICLEI likes to cite Burlington, Vermont, and Santa Monica, California, in particular as positive examples of local sustainability.¹⁰⁹ Burlington has committed to multiple endeavors to promote sustainable practices. These include [32 ELR 10676] adopting an inclusionary zoning program to ensure affordable housing, a Legacy Project to provide a means for public participation in the design and implementation of the city's programs, a Climate Action Plan to save energy and reduce greenhouse gases, and an Urban Forestry Master Plan to manage and preserve Burlington's urban forest.¹¹⁰ Santa Monica adopted its "Sustainable City Program" in 1994, and has continuously measured its progress toward its self-defined targets. These targets include reducing water usage and solid waste, and increasing the number of city fleet vehicles using reduced emission fuels, the total number of people who car pool in the city, the amount of open space, and the number of deed-restricted affordable housing units.¹¹¹ But while the efforts of both Burlington and Santa Monica should be lauded, both are liberal small towns where the scale alone makes progress much easier than on a much larger canvass such as Chicago.

Another municipality using its local powers in creative ways is Austin, Texas. Austin in the late 1990s developed a Smart Growth Matrix—an innovative tool designed to redirect existing subsidies in ways to channel Austin's rapid growth more wisely. The program uses a score card that offers developers incentives for including in their projects such attributes as transit access, brownfields redevelopment, usage of existing water and sewer infrastructure, and good urban design. Projects with enough points can earn various benefits, including waiver of development fees and expedited permitting. This is another example of the use of Agenda 21's recommendation to "reform and recast existing structures of fiscal . . . incentives to meet environmental and development objectives."¹¹² Austin's approach supports the trend toward "new urbanism."

At its core, new urbanism—yet another term that has captured attention in the last few years—is an architecture and planning approach that tries to provide an alternative to conventional, automobile-based communities. This includes promoting mixed land use, with commercial offices and shops on main transportation axes, along with residential units and high-density zoning to promote walkable neighborhoods with civic centers.¹¹³ New urbanist principles are now being incorporated into new state and municipal zoning laws. One such local law is the "traditional neighborhood development ordinance," which has been adopted in several municipalities (including Huntersille, North Carolina, and Fort Collins, Colorado). New urbanism promotes more mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods,¹¹⁴ thus, "encouraging development patterns that reduce transport demand" as recommended by Agenda 21.¹¹⁵

But most municipalities still have a long way to go. Many local zoning laws still require single use zoning, and municipalities still engage in exclusionary zoning. People by and large remain wedded to their individual municipalities and states continue to give municipalities authority to zone and to tax. While regional cooperation is a necessary precursor to sustainability, municipalities themselves should also take affirmative steps to facilitate and advance its principles.

(NEWLINE)E. Neighborhood and Public Participation Efforts

Community-based organizations are increasingly leading neighborhood visioning processes and using new tools to promote sustainability—in a sense implementing the Rio Principle of citizen education and participation. As an example, the Sustainable Roxbury Coalition—whose members include the Dudley Street Initiative, the Easleston Square Neighborhood Coalition, and Project RIGHT—was convened in early 1999 by Alternatives for Community and Environment (ACE) to ensure the citizens of the lower income neighborhoods of Roxbury had a voice in Boston's city planning process and in decisions about transportation, housing, and economic development. Sustainable Roxbury illustrates how an organization can help citizens envision and advocate for sustainable, equitable development. The coalition won commitments for a comprehensive air quality and transportation study of future development in Dudley Square and resident participation in development planning. The organization is currently developing a smart growth vision of Roxbury, influencing the master plan on a series of issues.¹¹⁶ William Shutkin, the former head of ACE, writes: "Groups like Sustainable Roxbury are bringing together citizens, environmentalists, politicians, and business people to take on the environmental challenges in their communities and, in the process, to revitalize civic life and their economies."¹¹⁷

A group that is part of Sustainable Roxbury, the Dudley Street Initiative, shows well how community-based organizations are working to promote sustainable urban agriculture. The initiative began its work in 1997, and has been cleaning up brownfield sites and vacant lots in the Dudley Street neighborhood and redeveloping them for both food production and value-added food enterprises such as prepared foods (smoked fish, preserves, and dried mushrooms).¹¹⁸ Thus, abandoned and contaminated sites are replaced with community assets, which provide both jobs and fresh food for local residents. While not being used in Roxbury, land trusts are another tool being increasingly adopted to preserve open space and urban parks. Designated by the tax code as tax-exempt charities, land trusts buy land to conserve open space. Most land trusts "serve a state, region [32 ELR 10677] or, more typically, a single town or county, a valley or a watershed, or a metropolitan area."¹¹⁹ The number of such trusts has grown remarkably—from 431 land trusts in 1981 to 1,227 land trusts preserving over 17 million acres of open space in 1998.¹²⁰

As part of their efforts, communities have begun using indicators, scenario planning tools, and the latest technology systems like Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to help engage citizen participation and measure a community's health.¹²¹ Through GIS technology, communities have begun sorting and categorizing information by spatial units—a technique that has proven invaluable. Communities now have the capacity to create and print user-friendly maps that indicate a host of different factors and elements. GIS has also been enlisted to identify trends and areas of concern that transcend political jurisdictions, further highlighting the need for regional governing structures.¹²² The present-day use of GIS probably far exceeds the expectations and hopes of the drafters of Agenda 21 when they recommended "improving the use of data and information at all stages of planning and management."¹²³ The ultimate purpose of improved data systems is to support a more integrated approach to decisionmaking.

In the midst of such progress, in too many places, decisions are still largely made by developers and municipalities without regard to public input or broader considerations.

IV. Recommendations

To promote local sustainability, there are a number of key steps that could be taken at the federal, state, regional, and municipal levels—both in the short and long term. Perhaps the most significant legal changes need to take place at the state level, since state law plays such a critical role. In general, states ought to explore broader based, more comprehensive smart growth programs that encourage regional cooperation as well as some type of change in their tax systems. Such changes in governance—and the need to enforce these changes—are often a prerequisite to improving local sustainability. While this section discusses short-term and long-term reforms, it is important to note that the exact nature of the long-term reform will largely be determined by events—and the reaction to events—in the short term. Because sustainability and the needs of localities are dynamic, perspectives for change must constantly evolve to meet these changing needs. Still, it is important that there be incentives for local planners and communities to consider the long-term results of their actions.

A. National Level

At the federal level, there has been general political antipathy toward making any major changes to promote local sustainability since much that involves local sustainability is thought to be outside the purview of the federal government and such changes appear to lack broad public support. However, there are many things the federal government can do in both the short term and long term to promote sustainable growth at the local level.

In the short term, Congress and the federal government should enlist specific conditional funding mechanisms that provide incentives for municipalities to cooperate and grow intelligently. One important law the federal government must enforce, as it was forced to do in Atlanta, is the CAA requirement for compliance on air standards. The federal government could also provide greater funding for information technology and other tools that localities can use. Regarding particular legislation, in working to reauthorize the federal transportation law, Congress should put increased emphasis on alternative transportation funding and flexibility and transportation choices for communities. Lawmakers should also think about replicating the regional transportation framework in other areas that require regional planning, such as water resources.

Other examples of legislation that could improve local sustainability include:

. Applying the National Environmental Protection Act (which requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their activities, alternatives to those activities, and ways to mitigate those impacts) so that local communities will have greater power in identifying, reviewing, and addressing federal actions or projects that may have an impact on urban growth and sprawl.

. Creating biker commuter legislation to allow employees who bike to work the same financial incentives as car-poolers and mass transit users. Currently, the federal tax code allows deductions for the costs of commuting by car and/or mass transit, but provides no similar benefits to bicyclists. This would change the "transportation fringe benefit" of the tax code to include those who chose to bike to work.

. Changing community and regional planning legislation to allow the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to administer significant individual grants to states and regional bodies. Currently, HUD administers grants primarily to municipalities. Grants could be used for developing land use planning legislation, supporting planning in states with updated enabling legislation, and planning efforts by multistate regions or tribal governments.

. Equalizing commuter benefits by making the federal employer-provided transit and van-pool benefit equal to the federal employer-provided parking benefit. The benefit should also be extended to employees who walk or bicycle to work.

. Spurring home ownership through tax and mortgage policies that provide additional incentives and benefits to first-time buyers, low-income citizens, [32 ELR 10678] people of color, transit-users, energy-savers, and owners who work at home. Tax incentives could also be given for rehabilitation and expansion of occupied and abandoned homes, which could assist imperiled neighborhoods. Moreover, a housing trust fund could be considered.

In the long term, it is hoped that certain measures may at some point become more politically palatable and be put on the table for discussion. Specific long-term items include changing the federal mortgage interest deduction tax so that it does not encourage single-family housing. Suburban migration has been fostered for decades by this tax deduction, which essentially subsidizes homeowners (suburbs) over renters (city). In addition, it might be worth enacting some type of additional federal tax on gasoline to discourage the persistent over-reliance on the automobile. Such a tax could also be used to help fund local sustainability projects and public transportation where needed.

We also ought to consider enacting some type of national land use law that encourages, or perhaps more comprehensively conditions funding to, states and communities to adopt more sensible planning laws and regulations. In the early 1970s, Congress expressed a strong interest in a national land use and planning law, but since that time, it has been, and continues to be, very difficult to even garner a discussion on the topic. Other longer term federal actions could include rearranging congressional committees and agency jurisdictions to encourage departments to work more closely together on cross-cutting issues. Congress might want to rewrite federal environmental laws across the board so that they deal with solutions on a more regional level.

B. State and Regional Level

As noted, one of the inherent problems in achieving sustainability at the state and local level is the emphasis placed in current law on independent municipalities and the dependence of such municipalities on property taxes. Such taxation limits the capacity of many municipalities to raise revenues, thereby eroding the financial base necessary to adopt new sustainability measures.

In the short and long term, states need to move toward a system that better promotes regional governance and shares taxes within a region. The new state laws and regional cooperation efforts described in the previous section could perhaps lay the groundwork for more progress. But much more needs to be done. States need to learn from their experiences and adopt tailored, comprehensive laws that meet their particular needs and help to coordinate actions among their own state agencies. As the National Governors' Association notes: "Continued leadership by governors and cooperation from multiple government and nongovernment partners are required to sustain the intensive coordination that is needed to promote quality growth."¹²⁴

With so precious few examples of tangible regional governance, we need to continue to experiment with approaches and learn from what has been adopted. The approach used by Metro Portland in Portland, Oregon, can be instructive. Established in 1979, Metro Portland was the country's first regional government and a key reason why Portland has become one of the most attractive, livable cities in the nation. Metro Portland, an elected regional government representing the area's three counties, was the result of a far-sighted 1973 state law that required Oregon's municipalities to develop comprehensive land use plans and establish "growth boundaries" around their perimeter. This law has, among other things, helped Portland avoid the sprawling development that distinguishes most urban regions, allowed local jurisdictions to eschew redundant and expensive infrastructure investments, and facilitated regional coordination and planning.

A particularly good example of regional tax-sharing can be found in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. The Metropolitan Council for the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, which has been discussed, draws much of its financial strength from a tax-sharing system. The state's fiscal disparities law, adopted by the Minnesota Legislature in 1971, requires all jurisdictions to contribute 40% of annual post-1971 increase into a common pool. The results? Since its enactment, the fiscal disparities among jurisdictions has gone from 17 to 1 in property valuation between the richest and poorest towns to 4 to 1 today.¹²⁵

One alternative to regional tax-sharing that also serves to equalize revenue disparities between localities is state fiscal equalization grants to local governments. Many other developed nations use this mechanism for their subnational governments. Such a mechanism would enable fiscally strapped localities to provide an adequate level of public services.

States can undertake a variety of other measures. They can encourage regional consensus-building efforts and the creation of regional planning commissions, which can then use various regulatory and fiscal incentives and disincentives to channel growth and foster intermunicipal cooperation. States also have the legal authority to directly influence localities' zoning, land use, and regulatory practices. By instituting supportive requirements or minimum standards for localities, states can influence both the physical shape and the social impact of future development. In so doing, they can help make regions more environmentally protective, economically competitive, and socially equitable.

In whatever is undertaken, we need to always be open to the evolution of new models that will work for different regions.

C. Municipal Level Focus

While regional cooperation is a necessary precursor to sustainability, municipalities themselves should also take affirmative steps to facilitate and advance their principles. Looking abroad, Curitiba, Brazil, is a good example of how local sustainability can be promoted through integrated planning. In the early 1970s, the city designated several main roadways radiating from the city center as structural axes for clean, efficient, and economical busways. Through zoning laws promoting mixed-use development, the city encouraged construction of high-density buildings (including affordable housing and community space) along these corridors. One result is that, even as population has doubled, car traffic has declined by 30%, and 75% of commuters now use [32 ELR 10679] public transportation.¹²⁶ The city is also now placing greater efforts on cooperating with other municipalities in the region. Curitiba is indeed an excellent example at integrated decisionmaking and planning for the future in ways that account for the environment, the economy, and social equity.

Other ways that municipalities can encourage local sustainability is through developer feesas incentives for smarter growth. Developers that want to build on land with no infrastructure should be required to pay the real costs of provision of roads, water and sewer lines, extra miles traveled by police, fire, and school bus services as well as a portion of any necessary new school development—an example of the polluter-pays principle. Conversely, developers who avoid these costs by using existing infrastructure can be rewarded by not paying developer fees. Municipalities could also consider adopting user impact fees (for such things as roads) or a reward system for transit-oriented developments by providing expediting permits, tax breaks, and free or reduced-cost infrastructure improvements—methods of reforming and recasting existing structures of fiscal and economic incentives to meet environmental and development objectives.¹²⁷

Municipalities should study their land use patterns and road systems and, where feasible, require bike lanes and sidewalks on local roads to connect residential neighborhoods with retail and job centers. With adequate systems, these localities may find more people using alternative means of transportation.¹²⁸ Cities can also team up with mortgage lenders to provide location-efficient mortgages—mortgages that allow buyers who purchase homes in neighborhoods with transit alternatives to borrow more money, which they might have spent on a second or third car.¹²⁹ Municipalities should also examine their building rehabilitation codes. The existing stock of buildings in the United States represents a huge potential asset for smart growth efforts; however, many localities have complexities in their regulatory systems making it difficult to repair, rehabilitate, or update these valuable assets.¹³⁰

As municipalities move toward a regional approach, an important area is housing and how to promote "fair share" affordable housing so that each municipality in the region accepts its "fair share" of affordable units. As discussed, one way that individual communities can boost their stock of affordable housing is through inclusionary zoning. Such zoning can require developers to include a given share of affordable housing in a development as a condition for approval of construction. In return, the municipality can grant the developer density bonuses (allowing them to build more units per acre) or permitting favors that speed construction.

D. Public/Private Partnerships and Community Participation

At all levels, we ought to consider changing a range of laws to encourage enduring, broad-based public/private partnerships throughout urban regions. In doing so, we must determine a clear vision of what people want by allowing them to have a voice in the process. Communities must bring players from across the region tothe decisionmaking table. As recommended by Rio Principle 10, "environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens."¹³¹ Allowing a few governmental officials and perhaps some leading interested parties to make decisions that affect an entire region should not be legally permissible.

In addition to examples in the previous section, such as in Chicago, two illustrations of how public/private partnerships have advanced local sustainability principles can be found in Canada. In 1994, the city council of Burnbay, British Columbia, engaged local community groups and other levels of government on a variety of environmental initiatives affecting the area. The results of their working together has led to the effective and continued management of local streams and public green lands. In what many would have previously considered an untenable partnership, Vancouver's Equity Housing Cooperative, a government agency, teamed up with Habitat for Humanity, local developers and neighborhood families to construct a mixed-use complex in East Vancouver. By helping construct the complex, people earn equity toward their new homes.¹³²

It has also been demonstrated that such partnerships should look to nontraditional allies, such as foundations, which because of their resources and own institutional linkages could stand to have an enormous impact on local sustainability. The MacArthur Foundation, for example, has become a partner in advancing smart growth in Chicago and southern Florida through its generous financial support to such projects. Meanwhile, academic centers and programs could also play a key role, given their cutting-edge knowledge and educational mission.

More must be done at all levels to provide incentives for the establishment of public/private partnerships and broad-based consensus-building efforts. Successful partnerships can, among other things, reduce real and potential frictions throughout the public policy process and thereby allow for more efficient, informed, and democratic decisionmaking, all of which are prerequisites to long-term local sustainability.

V. Conclusion

In the last decade, there has been increased emphasis on sustainability at the local level throughout the United States. This journey in many ways is just in its beginning stages.

As we have taken our initial steps forward, we have learned more and more about the difficulty of boundaries in all respects. To achieve local sustainability our governance structure will have to be less hierarchical and independent and more lateral and systematic. Local sustainability is not, and by its nature cannot be, the result of parochial actions. It will only be realized in its fullest form through a more catholic perspective and approach to both our public policies and our individual way of life.

Another theme to emerge has been the enduring emphasis placed on the municipality as the primary sub-state unit of authority and policy action. The continued focus of the United States on the municipality and municipal [32 ELR 10680] boundaries is steeped in long-term tradition. To achieve local sustainability, however, we must move beyond our deep ideological commitment to local autonomy and begin to devote more attention to broad-based regional solutions and tools. That means continuing to transcend the limitations of official governmental bodies with respect to localities.

Indeed, a third theme that emerges is to be careful of over-reliance on governmental action as the contributor to and the rescuer from local unsustainability. It is necessary to recognize and accept that government is but one subsystem within a broader framework consisting of other subsystems like our sociocultural and economic subsystems. Our efforts to realize local sustainability will require an understanding of how each of these subsystems relates to and influences one another over time and space. Laws are important and they need to reflect our new geographic realities, but we should not look for them alone to rescue us.

1. ALBERT GORE JR., EARTH IN THE BALANCE: ECOLOGY AND THE HUMAN SPIRIT (1992).

2. Lance Morrow, A Crisis Real as Rain, TIME, May 4, 1992, at 76 (book review).

3. Albert Gore Jr., Strengthening America's Communities, Address at the Brookings Policymaker Series (Sept. 2, 1998), available at http://www.brookings.org/comm/events/19980902.htm (last visited Mar. 29, 2002). Press Release, Gore Presidential Campaign, Al Gore: Working to Protect and Preserve the Environment (July 24, 2000).

4. Dan Balz, Bush Still Leads Gore in Poll, WASH. POST, June 13, 2000, at A22. Press Release, Bush Presidential Campaign, Bush Proposes Innovative Reform Agenda to Spur State and Local Brownfield Cleanups (Apr. 3, 2000).

5. RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER'S COLLEGE DICTIONARY (1999) (defining brownfield as a "vacant former industrial site regarded as a candidate for development").

6. U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). Agenda 21, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151.26 (1992), available at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21chapter28.htm (last visited Mar. 29, 2002) [hereinafter UNCED Agenda 21].

7. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/5/Rev. 1, 31 I.L.M. 874 (1992) [hereinafter Rio Declaration].

8. UNCED, Agenda 21, supra note 6, P8.4.

9. Id. P8.5(g).

10. Rio Declaration, supra note 7, princ. 4.

11. Id. princ. 3.

12. Id. princ. 10.

13. Id. princ. 16.

14. UNCED, Agenda 21, supra note 6, P28.1.

15. Id. P28.3.

16. Id. P28.2(a).

17. Id. P8.4(f).(ENDFOOT)

18. Id. P8.2.

19. Id. P9.14.

20. Id. P7.30(c).

21. Id. P7.52(a).

22. Id. P9.9(c).

23. Id. P10.8(a).

24. Id. P8.2.

25. Id. PP8.13-8.16.

26. Id. P7.14.

27. Press Release, United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, Habitat II (Istanbul, Turkey, June 3, 1996).

28. Report of the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 165/14 (1996), P180 [hereinafter Habitat Agenda]

29. Id. P238 (and more specific suggestions throughout the document).

30. Id. P185.

31. Id. P111.

32. Id. P113(b).

33. Id. P186(f).

34. Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21, G.A. Res. S/19-2, P12, U.N. GAOR, 19th Special Sess., 11th plen. mtg., Annex, Agenda Item 8, U.N. Doc. A/RES/S-192 (1997), available at http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/spec/aress19-2.htm (last visited Mar. 29, 2002).

35. Id. P32.

36. U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development. Overall Progress Achieved Since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Report of the Secretary-General, 5th Sess., U.N. Doc. E/CN.17/1997/2 (1997).

37. UNITED NATIONS CENTRE FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENTS, STATE OF THE WORLD'S CITIES (2001) [hereinafter STATE OF THE WORLD'S CITIES].

38. Kofi Annan, Foreward, in STATE OF THE WORLD'S CITIES, supra note 37.

39. STATE OF THE WORLD'S CITIES, supra note 37, at 109.

40. Id.

41. UNCED, Agenda 21, supra note 6, P7.14.

42. Habitat Agenda, supra note 28, PP185, 186(f).

43. JOSEF LEITMANN, SUSTAINING CITIES: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN URBAN DESIGN 7 (McGraw-Hill 1999); MOLLY O'MEARA SHEEHAN, CITY LIMITS: PUTTING THE BRAKES ON SPRAWL 6-7 (Worldwatch 2001).

44. Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Pollution and Health Risks, 28 POPULATION REP. 6 (2000).

45. LEITMANN, supra note 43, at 17.

46. Lamont C. Hempel, Conceptual and Analytical Challenges in Building Sustainable Communities, in TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES: TRANSITION AND TRANSFORMATIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY (Daniel A. Mazmanian & Michael E. Kraft eds., 1999).

47. UNCED, Agenda 21, supra note 6, broad-based planning: P10.1 ("The essence of the integrated approach finds expression in the coordination of the sectoral planning and management activities concerned with the various aspects of land use and land resources.") and P10.4 ("This programme area is concerned primarily with providing a framework that will coordinate decisionmaking."); more compact and higher density development, greater choice in transportation and housing, and mixed land uses: Id. P7.29(c) ("land-use planning solutions for a more rational and environmentally sound use of limited land resources") and P7.52 ("development patterns that reduce transport demand").

48. Id. P8.4 (Agenda 21 seeks improved decisionmaking "in pursuit of development that is economically efficient, socially equitable and responsible and environmentally sound").

49. Id. P8.4; Rio Declaration, supra note 7, princ. 5.

50. MYRON W. ORFIELD, AMERICAN METROPOLITICS: A REGIONAL AGENDA FOR COMMUNITY AND STABILITY (Brookings Institution 1997); ROBERT BULLARD ET AL., SPRAWL CITY: RACE POLITICS, AND PLANNING ATLANTA (Island Press 2000); DAVID RUSK, INSIDE GAME/OUTSIDE GAME: WINNING STRATEGIES FOR SAVING URBAN AMERICA (Brookings Institution 1999).

51. MANUEL PASTOR ET AL., REGIONS THAT WORK: HOW CITIES AND SUBURBS CAN GROW TOGETHER (University of Minnesota Press 2000).

52. Statistical measures are especially beguiling on this topic and can be interpreted in different ways. Several environmental measures, however, indicate that we are moving gradually in the right direction. For instance, urban air pollution levels have dropped. From 1988-1997, the Pollutant Standards Index, a measure of pollutant concentrations in large urban areas, showed a 56% increase in southern California, but a 66% decrease in the remaining cities across the United States. Another positive trend is that recycling of municipal solid waste in the United States grew from 16.2% in 1990 to 28.2% in 1998. That transit ridership is at an all-time high is another positive measure. However, between 1990 and 1997, urban development patterns and other factors resulted in an increase of vehicle miles traveled by more than 63%. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD), UNITED STATES—HABITAT II PROGRESS REPORT (2001) (draft). And as noted, sprawl has continued in the last decade, but at a slower rate than previous decades.

53. UNCED, Agenda 21, supra note 6, PP7.4, 8.2

54. BUILDING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES, A REPORT FROM THE CLINTON-GORE ADMINISTRATION (U.S. Gov't Printing Office 2000).

55. Pub. L. No. 105-34, § 941, 111 Stat. 788, 882 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 26 U.S.C.).

56. Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, Pub. L. No. 107-73, 115 Stat. 651 (2001).

57. Pub. L. No. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107.

58. UNCED, Agenda 21, supra note 6, P7.29(c).

59. Id. P7.52(b).

60. Id. P7.52(d).

61. Id. P9.14.

62. PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE AMERICA (1996).

63. Id.

64. Joint Center on Sustainable Communities, About the Joint Center, at http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/sustainable (last visited Nov. 14, 2001).

65. PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE AMERICA (1999).

66. Albert Gore Jr., Strengthening America's Communities, supra note 3.

67. See Louis Allan Talley, Gasoline ExciseTax—Historical Revenues: Fact Sheet, Cong. Research Serv. Rep., 97-456E (Sept. 16, 1997), available at http://www.cnie.org/nle/eng-35.html (last visited Mar. 29, 2002); Thomas Cooper, Highway Financing, 61 PUBLIC ROADS 4 (1998), available at http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/may98/finance.htm.

68. Id.

69. 70 Del. Laws 522 (1996) (codified in scattered sections of DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 29 (1997)).

70. Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Act, 2000 Me. Laws 776 (codified in scattered sections of ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 30A and tit. 5 (West 2001)).

71. MD. CODE ANN. STATE FIN. & PROC. § 5-7B-01 et seq. (2001).

72. 1999 Pa. Laws Act 67, Act 68.

73. TENN. CODE ANN. § 6-58-101 et seq. (1998).

74. UTAH CODE ANN. § 11-38-101 to -304 (1999).

75. 1999 Wisconsin Act 9, available at http//www.legis.state.wi.us/billtrack.html (last visited Mar. 29, 2002).

76. UNCED, Agenda 21, supra note 6, P10.6; Rio Declaration, supra note 7, princ. 4. See also THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES, STATE INCENTIVE-BASED GROWTH MANAGEMENT LAWS (2001), available at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/esnr/growthdata.htm (last visited Mar. 29, 2002). This is a database of state legislation the National Conference of StateLegislatures developed in partnership with the Trust for Public Land of state legislation designed to provide incentives to manage growth and preserve open space.

77. UNCED, Agenda 21, supra note 6, P8.32(b).

78. Id. P8.32(c).

79. GERALD FRUG, CITY MAKING (Princeton Univ. Press 1999); PROPERTY TAXATION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (Wallace E. Oates ed., Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 2001).

80. MYRON W. ORFIELD, METROPOLITICS: A REGIONAL AGENDA FOR COMMUNITY AND STABILITY (Brookings Institution 1998).

81. KATHRYN A. FOSTER, REGIONALISM ON PURPOSE 23 (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 2001).

82. School Dist. of Kan. City v. City of Kan. City, 382 S.W.2d 688 (1964).

83. James W. Spensley, Using Intergovernmental Agreements to Manage Growth, 15 NAT. RESOURCES & ENV'T 240 (2001).

84. Id. at 242.

85. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q, ELR STAT. CAA §§ 101-618.

86. GA. CODE ANN. § 50-32-11(a)(33) (2001).

87. Id. § 50-32-11(a)(33), (37), (38).

88. UNCED, Agenda 21, supra note 6, P9.14.

89. Id. P7.52.

90. See Janice C. Griffith, Smart Governance for Smart Growth: The Need for Regional Governments. 17 GA. L. REV. 1019 n.4 (2001).

91. See CENTER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TECHNOLOGY, MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WORKS 31 (1998).

92. See Silicon Valley Network, Joint Venture, at http://www.jointventure.org (last visited Feb. 1, 2002).

93. Alliance for Regional Leadership Forum, Leadership Forum Materials 20 (2000). This conference examined the best practices of innovative regional leadership in 18 regions across America.

94. PETER CALTHORPE & WILLIAM FULTON, THE REGIONAL CITY (Island Press 2001).

95. INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES, ACCELERATING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: LOCAL ACTION MOVES THE WORLD 7 (2001), available at http://www.iclei.org/rioplusten/final-lgdp.pdf. (This paper is a preliminary "Dialogue Paper" which was prepared for the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development.) See also LEITMANN, supra note 43, at 44.

96. See International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Local Agenda 21 Campaign: LA21 Campaign Milestones, at http://www.iclei.org/iclei/la21.htm (last visited Feb. 1, 2002).

97. INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES, supra note 95, at 16; International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, supra note 96; Jeb Brugman, Agenda 21 and the Role of Local Government, in EARTH SUMMIT 2002: A NEW DEAL 40, 47-48 (Felix Dodds ed., Earthscan Publications 2001); Robert W. Lake, Contradictions at the Local Scale: Local Implementation of Agenda 21 in the USA, in CONSUMING CITIES: THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY AFTER THE RIO DECLARATION (Routledge 2001). In Europe in particular, municipalities have had a more enthusiastic response to Agenda 21 than in the United States. Compared to the United States, Europeans are more open to international cooperation and supportive of local environmental planning efforts. Thus, in Europe, local Agenda 21s were often built upon existing planning efforts.

98. INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES, supra note 95, at 9-11.

99. See International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Cities for Climate Protection, at http://www.iclei.org/co2 (last visited Feb. 1, 2002).

100. While Chattanooga has justifiably received much praise for its sustainability efforts, its formative work took place before 1992. Chattanooga Venture was formed in 1984 in recognition of the need for citizen involvement in creating a new agenda for the community's future. Its first project was a public participation process called "Vision 2000." The process involved more than 1,700 people and resulted in the setting out of 40 major goals. It has helped lead to a revitalization of the city, an improved self-image, and lowering of socioeconomic barriers.

The city does deserve credit for continuing to build on its efforts. Chattanooga Venture recently completed a "ReVision 2000" process. The city and its neighbors are also developing a commitment to working together as a region—from the ChatAltanta transportation project, designed to link the city with Atlanta, to the Greenways Planning Project, which aims to create a 75-mile Greenways network.

101. Tammy Webber, Chicago Vision: City of the Green Shoulders, WASH. POST, July 8, 2001, at A8.

102. UNCED, Agenda 21, supra note 6, P9.14.

103. Id. P7.29(c).

104. Id. P7.52(c).

105. Id. P7.49.

106. Id.; Kevin Davis, A Town of a Different Color: Chicago and Its Businesses Turn Green as Smart Growth Catches On, CRAIN'S CHICAGO BUS., Sept. 17, 2001, at 38; see also City of Chicago, City of Chicago, at http://www.ci.chi.il.us/ (last visited Feb. 1, 2002).

107. Illinois Income Tax Act § 201 (1997); see also City of Chicago Department of Environment, Brownfields Assistance, State of Illinois Income Tax Incentive for Brownfields, at http://www.cityofchicago.org/Environment/Brownfields/Sti.htm (last visited Mar. 29, 2002).

108. See City of Chicago Department of Environment, Brownfields Assistance, Environmental Loan Program, at http://www.cityofchicago.org/Environment/Brownfields/ELP.htm (last visited Feb. 2, 2002).

109. Telephone Interview with Allison Quaid, Project Director of Communities 21, ICLEI (Dec. 6, 2001).

110. See City of Burlington, Vermont, Plan and Project Clearinghouse at http://www.ci.burlington.vt.us/city/plans.html (last visited Feb. 2, 2002).

111. See City of Santa Monica, California, Santa Monica Sustainable City Program, at http://www.ci.santa-monica.ca.us/environment/policy (last visited Feb. 2, 2002).

112. UNCED, Agenda 21, supra note 6, P8.32(c).

113. MARK ROSELAND, TOWARD SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES (New Society Publishers 1998); see also ANDRES DUANY ET AL., SUBURBAN NATION: THE RISE OF SPRAWL AND THE DECLINE OF THE AMERICAN DREAM (North Point Press 2000).

114. DON CHEN, GREETINGS FROM SMART GROWTH AMERICA (2000).

115. UNCED, Agenda 21, supra note 6, P7.52(a).

116. See National Neighborhood Coalition, Transportation, Development, and Environment Initiative, in SMART GROWTH, BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS: COMMUNITIES LEADING THE WAY 163-72 (National Neighborhood Coalition 2000) [hereinafter SMART GROWTH, BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS]; William Shutkin, Urban Agriculture in Boston's Dudley Neighborhood: A Modern Twist on Jefferson's Dream, in THE LAND THAT COULD BE: ENVIRONMENTALISM AND DEMOCRACY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY (MIT Press 2000); F. KAID BENFIELD, JUTKA TERRIS, NANCY VORSANGER, SOLVING SPRAWL: MODELS OF SMART GROWTH IN COMMUNITIES ACROSS AMERICA (National Resources Defense Council 2001).

117. William Shutkin, An Environmentalism We Cannot Live Without, in SMART GROWTH, BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS supra note 116, at 173.

118. Shutkin, supra note 116, at 155.

119. Jean Hocker, Land Trusts: Key Elements in the Struggle Against Sprawl, 15 NAT. RESOURCES & ENV'T 244 (2001).

120. Id.

121. As an example of the widespread interest in sustainability, a search on the Internet using the term "sustainable communities" will produce hundreds of websites representing governmental agencies to nonprofit organizations to academia.

122. G. THOMAS KINGSLEY, BUILDING AND OPERATING NEIGHBORHOOD INDICATOR SYSTEMS: A GUIDEBOOK 21 (Urban Institute 1999). More information about GIS is available at the U.S. Geological Survey (http://sflwww.er.usgs.gov/); Essential Information (http://www.essential.org/gis/index.html); GreenInfo Network (http://www.greeninfo.org). Minnesota State Representative Myron Orfield has pioneered the use of GIS for the mapping of regional trends. See ORFIELD, supra note 50.

123. UNCED, Agenda 21, supra note 6, P8.5(a).

124. National Governor's Ass'n, Key State Issues From the Center for Best Practices, at http://www.nga.org/nga/1,1169,C_CENTER_ISSUE,00.html (last visited Feb. 2, 2002).

125. ORFIELD, supra note 50; DAVID RUSK, CITIES WITHOUT SUBURBS (Woodrow Wilson Center Press 1995).

126. SHEEHAN, supra note 43, at 32-33; AMORY LOVINS ET AL., NATURAL CAPITALISM (Little Brown and Company 2000).

127. UNCED, Agenda 21, supra note 6, P8.32.

128. Id. P7.52(c) "Encourage nonmotorized modes of transport by providing safe cycleways and footways in urban and suburban centres in countries, as appropriate."

129. This is a very creative way to recast fiscal and economic incentives to meet environmental and development objectives. Id. P8.32.

130. See U.S. HUD, SMART CODES IN YOUR COMMUNITY: A GUIDE TO REHABILITATION CODES (2001).

131. Rio Declaration, supra note 7, princ. 10.

132. ROSELAND, supra note 113, at 150.

32 ELR 10667 | Environmental Law Reporter | copyright © 2002 | All rights reserved