Land Use Forum
Archive
Land Use Articles
Wisconsin Land Council Considers State Land-Use Goals
by Tom Larson
The Wisconsin Land Council (WLC) is in the process of drafting state land-use goals which, once completed, will be recommended to the governor as a means to encourage consistent state, county, and municipal land-use polices and practices. The WLC consists of representatives from state agencies, local governments, and the private sector, including the WRA. One of the WLC's statutory charges is to create the state land-use goals and submit them to the governor, along with recommendations on how the goals can be implemented.
State Land-Use Goals
The state land-use goals are intended to be broad policies that will be used to guide the identification of the state's land-use policies. All of the goals have equal weight and each goal is intended to be considered within the context of the other goals. To date, the WLC has identified the following nine state land-use goals:
- Promote economic growth and development that will create a strong economic base and provide balanced opportunities for both urban and rural residents of Wisconsin;
- Encourage coordinated land-use planning and plan implementation among all levels of government, reduce intergovernmental conflict, and increase cooperation and public participation in the planning process;
- Conserve and enhance Wisconsin's natural systems and resources;
- Promote development and redevelopment of property to support the provision and sharing of adequate public infrastructure and services and relatively low municipal and state governmental and utility costs;
- Promote an adequate supply of housing choices and opportunities, including affordable elements, for individuals in each community;
- Provide an integrated, efficient, economical, and diverse transportation system that affords mobility, convenience, and safety that meets the needs of all citizens, including transit dependent and disabled citizens;
- Preserve and enhance open spaces, natural habitats, and areas with historic, cultural, scenic or recreational value;
- Promote and enhance the vitality and characteristics of Wisconsin's unique communities; and
- Preserve lands that are essential to the agricultural systems and economy of Wisconsin.
How The Goals Will Be Used
The WLC is recommending that all forms of government (state and local) consider the goals with significant weight when establishing land-use policies and regulations. Specifically, the WLC is recommending that the goals be used by:
- WLC to guide council actions;
- State agencies when creating programs, policies, and administrative rules;
- Local units of government to guide their land-use decisions; and
- Legislature when considering or developing legislation.
Public Comments
The WLC is now soliciting comments from the public on the goals and how they are to be used. Anyone interested in submitting comments should send them to Office of Land Information Services, 17 South Fairchild Street, Madison, WI 53707 or by e-mail to
olis@doa.state.wi.us.
Back to Inside This
Edition
Return to On-Line
Publications
High Court Rules That 32-Month Moratorium Is Not a "Taking"
by Tom Larson
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of a 32-month building moratorium in the case of the Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
The case began in 1984 when the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) imposed two moratoria, totaling 32 months, on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while creating a comprehensive land-use plan for the area. A lawsuit was filed subsequently by a group of landowners who argued that the temporary ban on building constituted a "taking" of their property without just compensation. The litigation continued for two decades and was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in January for the final decision.
The majority opinion, drafted by Justice John Paul Stevens, focused on the reciprocal benefits all citizens receive when governments plan in a comprehensive fashion. Justice Stevens wrote: "Moratoria are an essential tool of successful development. The interest in informed decision-making counsels against adopting a per se rule that would treat such interim measures as takings regardless of the planners' good faith, the landowners' reasonable expectations, or the moratorium's actual impact on property values. The financial constraints of compensating property owners during a moratorium may force officials to rush through the planning process or abandon the practice altogether ... To the extent that communities are forced to abandon using moratoria, landowners will have incentives to develop their property quickly before a comprehensive plan can be enacted, thereby fostering inefficient and ill-conceived growth."
The Court rejected the landowners argument for the establishment of a categorical rule that whenever the government imposes a deprivation of all economically viable use of property, no matter how brief, it constitutes a taking. The Court recognized that a regulation temporarily denying an owner all use of her property might not constitute a taking if the denial was part of the State's authority to enact safety regulations, or if it were one of the normal delays in obtaining building permits, changes in zoning ordinances, or variances. The Court further reasoned that a permanent deprivation of all use is a taking of the parcel as a whole, but a temporary restriction causing a diminution in value is not, for the property will recover value when the prohibition is lifted. Rather than adopting such a categorical rule, the Court instead stated that the better approach to a temporary regulatory taking claim requires careful examination and weighing of all the relevant circumstances-only one of which is the length of the delay.
Commentary
Despite the way this case is being spun in the media, it is important to note that the Court did not say that all local units of government have the authority to enact moratoria or that a moratorium will never constitute a "taking." In the Lake Tahoe case, state statutes provide specific authority to adapt moratoria for this purpose. In contrast, Wisconsin does not provide specific
statutory authority for counties or towns to enact moratoria, and provides very limited authority for cities, villages, and arguably towns with village powers. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that a 32-month moratorium is not a per se "taking." It did not rule that a 32-month moratorium will never constitute a "taking." Rather, the court stated that the moratorium enacted by the TRPA was not an automatic taking and that other factors must be considered in making such a determination.
Back to Inside This
Edition
Return to On-Line
Publications
2002 Wisconsin Housing Conference
The 2002 Wisconsin Housing Conference will focus on two of the hottest community development issues being debated today: affordable housing and smart growth.
Wisconsin's Smart Growth deadline, which requires communities to adopt a plan that balances affordable housing and smart growth goals, is almost eight years away, but it has already become a topic of local policy debate.
Date: May 21-22, 2002
Location: Fluno Center for Executive Education, 601 University Ave., Madison
Cost: Conference-$80 ($65 each for three or more registrants); Optional Pre-Conference Dinner Session on May 21-$40
Registration Deadline: May 15, 2002. Call (608) 265-2032 for availability after May15.
More Information: Contact Lee Gottschalk at (608) 265-2032; fax (608) 265-2738; or e-mail
legottsc@facstaff.wisc.edu.
Back to Inside This
Edition
Return to On-Line
Publications
Back to Top
|
