Responding To Streams Of Land Use Disputes
Responding to Streamsof Land Use Disputes:A Systems ApproachPractical Strategies for Planners,Decision Makers, and StakeholdersPolicy Report #5Public Policy Research InstitueThe University of MontanaandConsensus Building Institute
Responding to Streams of land Use Disputesby Matthew McKinney, Sarah Bates Van de Wetering, and Patrick Field(c) 2007 Public Policy Research InstituteThe University of Montana
Tableo fContentsPreface 1Introduction 2Research Methodology 4Streams of Land Use Disputes 5Dispute Systems Design: A Prescriptive Framework 8From Theory to Practice 13Analysis of Current Practice 17Best Practices 26Conclusion 30Literature and Resources 31AppendicesA: Participants in National Policy Dialogue 33B: Profiles of Land Use Dispute Resolution Programs 34C: The Role of Collaboration in Land Use Decisions 53
October 23, 2007Dear Friends and Colleagues:We welcome the publication of Responding to Streams of Land Use Disputes: A Systems Approachas a significant contribution to the theory and practice of land use policy and decisionmaking.The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy has long conducted and supported research andpractical applications on land use policy, decision making, and dispute resolution. ThisLincoln Institute supported report advances the issues and themes that underpin a series ofpublications and programs on land use dispute mediation and negotiation produced by theConsensus Building Institute.The full promise of interest-based, collaborative strategies is more likely to be fulfilled usingthe concepts and strategies for dispute resolution systems design featured in this report. Assuch, it will prove to be a highly useful, helpful guide for planners, planning board members,other civic officials, developers, and citizens and other stakeholders.We hope you enjoy this well-researched, informative, and practical report.Yours sincerely,Armando CarbonellSenior Fellow and ChairDepartment of Planning and Urban FormLincoln Institute of Land Policy
Prefaceliterature. In some cases, a policy report may serve asa catalyst for a multi-party dialogue or negotiation.In other cases, it may simply capture the status of aparticular topic and provide a useful analysis of thepast, present, and options for the future. The Institutecarefully selects topics to address after consulting withcitizens, leaders, and scholars, and determining its owninterest and capability for addressing the topic.The Public Policy Research Institute is an appliedresearch and education center based at The Universityof Montana. Its mission is to foster sustainablecommunities and landscapes through collaboration,consensus building, and conflict resolution. To helpachieve this mission, the Institute conducts actionoriented research and produces policy reports to informand invigorate public policy, and to examine currentissues in the use of collaborative methods to preventand resolve public disputes.To ensure that the policy reports are relevant, theInstitute partners with appropriate organizationsinvolved in public policy and public dispute resolution.Each policy report integrates scholarly research with theviews and opinions of people interested in or affectedby the topic. The Institute uses various means (suchas interviews, surveys, and policy dialogues) to engagestakeholders in naming problems and framing options,and then supplements this understanding with thebest available information and ideas in the appropriateResponding to Streams of Land Use Disputes: A SystemsApproach is a work in progress. It is intended to provideideas, support, and resources to local, state, and regionalland use professionals and elected officials seeking toprevent and resolve land use disputes. The policy reportprovides advice about designing, administering, andevaluating such programs, as well as information aboutcurrent programs currently throughout the country. Wehave made our best efforts to collect information onrepresentative programs, but we anticipate that there area number of initiatives that have not yet come to ourattention. We welcome input and updates from readers,and will revise this report as we receive new information.A special thanks to Kate Harvey (Consensus BuildingInstitute), Sean Nolan (Pace University), and RicRichardson (University of New Mexico) for theirinvaluable help in preparing this policy report.Please send information, suggestions, or comments to:Matthew McKinney, Ph.D.Director, Public Policy Research InstituteThe University of Montana516 N. Park Ave.Helena, MT r to this publication, the Institute produced a series ofCollaborative Governance Reports and Montana Policy Reports. Withthis publication, the Institute is folding the two series together intoa single series of Policy Reports.11
IntroductionLand use planners and decision makers are increasinglyusing a wide range of collaborative methods to preventand resolve differences between landowners, publicofficials, and other interested parties (see a menuof Collaborative Methods on page 3).2 Two studiescompleted by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy andthe Consensus Building Institute in 1999 demonstratethat negotiation and mediation have effectively resolvedland use disputes on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis.3One of the most compelling challenges inpreventing and resolving land use disputes isto move beyond the ad hoc use of negotiationand mediation, and anticipate and managedisputes by incorporating a wide range ofcollaborative methods into the land usedecision-making process.Building on these research findings, one of the mostcompelling challenges in preventing and resolvingland use disputes is to move beyond the ad hoc use ofnegotiation and mediation, and anticipate and managedisputes by incorporating a wide range of collaborativemethods into the land use decision-making process.See Henton, et. al., Collaborative Governance, in the Resourcessection at the end of this report.2See Susskind, et al., Mediating Land Use Disputes in the UnitedStates and Using Assisted Negotiation to Settle Land Use Disputes, inthe Resources section.32This policy report examines the degree to whichcollaborative methods are being integrated into thestandard operating procedures of land use planning anddecision making. It presents a conceptual frameworkto guide and evaluate the design of such programs,and it analyzes the key elements of 27 state and localprograms, looking at such questions as who participates,what sorts of issues are addressed, when collaborativemethods are used in the process, and how these methodsare employed. Although data on the performance ofexisting programs are limited, we were able to gainsome insight from a national policy dialogue convenedin 2006. This report summarizes the participants’experience, along with commentary about the benefitsof incorporating collaborative methods into land useplanning and decision making. The report concludeswith a set of ten “best practices” for designing andimplementing land use dispute resolution programs.The report also includes a section on literature andother resources referenced throughout the report, whereinterested readers may find more information on thetheory and practice of dispute system design and relatedtopics.Supplementary material in the report’s appendicesprovides the names of participants in the national policydialogue (Appendix A), summaries of the state andlocal programs identified in this research (Appendix B),and a table detailing the collaborative opportunitiesthroughout the land use process (Appendix C).
A Menu of Collaborative MethodsForums for Public DeliberationOne of the first steps in collaboration is to identify citizen preferences through forums for publicdeliberation. These types of public forums start by providing the best available information to citizens,and then facilitate the exchange of different viewpoints. The goal is to foster “informed input and advice.”Forums for public deliberation can also build working relationships and promote cooperation. Various toolsand techniques have been used in small discussion groups as well as in large-scale meetings. Specific toolsand links to more information include:21st Century Town Meetings (www.americaspeaks.org)Study Circles (www.studycircles.org)Online Dialogue (www.ethepeople.org)Deliberative Polling (www.la.utexas.edu/research/delpol)Citizens Jury (www.jefferson-center.org)Collaborative Problem SolvingBeyond gaining citizen input through deliberation and dialogue, another (more intense) form of collaborationinvolves organizations working together with government to find solutions to community problems, often onan ongoing basis. Collaborative problem solving usually involves actively engaging stakeholders directly inaddressing specific issues. Specific tools include:PartnershipsRoundtablesPolicy DialoguesJoint Fact FindingNegotiated RulemakingMulti-party Dispute ResolutionProactive approaches to involve people through deliberation and collaborative problem solving do not alwaysprevent land use disputes. Multi-party dispute resolution processes can be used when various stakeholdersare headed toward, or locked into, a contentious dispute. Dispute resolution approaches bring togetherthe interested parties, including government representatives, in discussions that begin with an attemptto enhance the participants’ mutual understanding of the problem and their different perspectives. Thisapproach to collaboration seeks a mutually satisfactory agreement on a common problem through a processnegotiation among participants. Specific tools nDispute Systems Design3
Research MethodologyIn 2001, the Consensus Building Institute (CBI)initiated research into statewide statutes thatencourage and support dispute resolution in the landuse context. Students in the University of Montana’sNatural Resources Conflict Resolution Program deepenedthis research in 2003 by completing a literature reviewand a preliminary survey of land use dispute resolutionprograms across the country. In 2005, the Public PolicyResearch Institute (PPRI) and CBI identified additionalprograms (and several that no longer existed) and newliterature on the subject of land use dispute resolution“systems.”By “land use dispute resolution system,” we arereferring to any ongoing effort—in contrast to isolated,ad hoc responses—to prevent and resolve the streamof disputes that characterize many land use decisions.These systems or programs are based on the observationthat land use disputes are chronic and inevitable, andthus there is a need to integrate collaborative methodsinto the standard operating procedures of land usedecision making.In the summer of 2005, the research team distributeda draft of this report to all the people contacted in thetwo phases of research, as well as to others identifiedas potential sources of information on land use disputeresolution systems. We presented the initial findings andconclusions at the 15th annual conference of the RockyMountain Land Use Institute in March, 2006. The inputreceived at each step has helped improve the accuracyand completeness of the information in this report, andprovided helpful insights on designing and administeringland use dispute resolute programs.In September of 2006, the Lincoln Institute of LandPolicy hosted a national policy dialogue among programmanagers, scholars, and other people interested increating land use dispute resolution systems. A list ofthe participants appears as Appendix A to this report.The policy dialogue’s goals were to:4 Examine and refine the prescriptive framework fordesigning land use dispute resolution systems; Review the general findings of this research; Clarify the pros and cons of alternative programmaticfunctions and structures (e.g., who participates, whatissues are addressed, when collaborative methods areused, how collaborative methods are used, and theauthority of programs); Evaluate the performance of as many programs aspossible; Identify the key ingredients to designing andadministering land use dispute resolution systems,particularly as these “inputs” influence theperformance of such systems; and Identify future areas for research, education, andpolicy development.We appreciate the input from the participants in thenational policy dialogue, and have integrated many oftheir comments into this final report.By “land use dispute resolution system,”we are referring to any ongoing effort—incontrast to isolated, ad hoc responses—toprevent and resolve the stream of disputesthat characterize many land use decisions.These systems or programs are based on theobservation that land use disputes are chronicand inevitable, and thus there is a need tointegrate collaborative methods into thestandard operating procedures of land usedecision making.
Streams of Land Use DisputesState and local governments face many challengesmanaging diverse public interests in land useplanning and decision making. Although each parcelof land is unique, predictable issues arise whenthat land is the subject of a proposed development,change of use, or protective designation. Publicofficials bear an increasingly heavy burden ofbalancing competing claims of private propertyrights, economic imperatives, environmental needs,and social equities. Each decision involves multipleparties and technical and scientific uncertainties.Frequently the stakes are high and public sentimentis polarized.For example, more than a decade ago the city ofMissoula, Montana, adopted a growth managementplan that included incentives for denser developmentwithin city limits to ensure a supply of affordablehousing and to alleviate sprawl on the urban fringe.Although few members of the public objected to theplan when it was adopted, many residents ralliedto object to the reality of clustered homes and newdevelopment in established neighborhoods. Membersof a neighborhood preservation group demanded newprotective ordinances and called for more responsivepolitical leadership. At one point, the dispute flaredat a city council meeting in which a council memberwas physically accosted outside the meeting bya citizen who objected to being referred to as amember of “that posse” of neighborhood activists.Even today, several years later, planning meetingsin Missoula are marked more typically by easilyidentified polarized factions than by rationaldiscussion of a community vision for prosperousneighborhoods. The city recently announcedthe start of a multi-year overhaul of its zoningordinance, kicked off with elected officials pleadingwith opponents of current practices to attendmeetings and provide input. “You want to keep yourneighborhood intact?” challenged one city councilmember, “You better start coming to these rewrites.”4In Missoula, as elsewhere, land use disputes appearto be inevitable, predictable, and ongoing.Such disputes often take a turn toward personalinvective. Not far from Missoula, a planning officialin fast-growing Ravalli County, Montana, recentlyfiled a grievance against a county commissionerfor threatening that she’d better “watch her back”in a one-on-one meeting regarding developmentand floodplain issues.5 The county planner alsofiled a defamation lawsuit against the countycommissioner and a local board of Realtors whoran an advertisement that questioned her characterand accused her of using her regulatory authorityas a “stick to beat the people with.”6 Reflectingthis ongoing discord, planning and land use issuesdominated the election of new Ravalli CountyCommission members in a June, 2006 election.Other disputes arise predictably in communitiesundergoing change due to market forces that extendfar beyond their boundaries. The expansion of “bigbox” stores (large retail outlets in blocky standalone buildings of 50,000-200,000 square feet) into4“Mayor Asks for Input on Zoning,” Missoulian (May 15, 2007).Michael Moore, “Ravalli Official Sues for Alleged Threat,” Missoulian(May 25, 2007).5Matthew Frank, “Ravalli County Administrator Alleges Defamation,Sues Commissioner, Board of Realtors,” Headwaters News (May 24,2007), allicounty administrator alleges defamation sues commissioner boardof/C35/L35/#comments65
small towns and suburban communities often promptsopposition by local retailers, labor activists, and othersconcerned about changing community character. Somecommunities have enacted statutes limiting the totalsquare footage allowed for retail establishments; othershave faced citizen initiatives asking for such restrictions.In a limited number of judicial decisions interpreting thelegality of such limitations, courts have upheld a city’spolice power to enact store-size restrictions in order toprotect its commercial district,7 but have cautioned thatthe city must articulate a reasonable justification forsuch a limitation.8Court cases involving takings and property rights havechallenged numerous local and regional approaches toland use planning and regulation. Some states haveenacted statutes limiting local planning authorityby requiring compensation when property values arediminished by statutory restrictions on development.9Land use disputes often result in expensive court battles,personal resentments, and civic discord. Although stateand local laws require public participation at severalstages throughout the decision process, citizens do notoften feel welcome or comfortable in formal hearings, orthey are not aware of the potential impact of a proposaluntil it is nearly or already approved. As described in arecent article in the Austin (Texas) Chronicle:T he meeting was an exercise in cross talk, one that’sbeen repeated time and again in Austin. Residentsdon’t want (fill in the blank: an apartment complex,high-density retail, a big fat superduplex).Thegoverning board, wrestling with the code on how toeither consider or dump a particular proposal, lands ona process, and the residents leave the meeting angryand frustrated.107Wal-Mart Stores v. City of Turlock, 138 Cal. App. 4th 273 (2006).8 ernandez v. City of Hanford, 137 Cal. App. 4th 1397 (2006), rev.Hgranted.9S ee, e.g., Oregon’s Measure 37, enacted in November, 2004, andcodified at O.R.S. §197.35210Kimberly Reeves, “More Big Box Brawling,” The Austin Chronicle(Jan. 26, 2007), y?oid oid%3A4392516By failing to understand the full range of interests atthe outset (and it may be a question when the “outset”occurs), planners miss opportunities to engage in jointproblem solving, and small differences in opinion cangrow into major, seemingly intractable disputes.Land use planning has evolved over the past century inan attempt to balance competing needs and to resolvethese predictable and chronic disputes. The early modelof technocratic planning emphasized efficient processes,giving a great deal of autonomy to professional plannerswho developed and implemented large-scale land useplans for urban areas. Later, as planners realized theinadequacies of this approach, they sought to provide amore open forum to hear from diverse interest groups inwhat has been characterized as the advocacy planningmodel.As described in the policy report published by theLincoln Institute of Land Policy in 2000, the mostrecent evolution of land use planning is represented bythe collaborative model, which the authors describe as“a highly structured problem-solving process in whichall stakeholders l
Responding to Streams of Land Use Disputes: A Systems Approach is a work in progress. It is intended to provide ideas, support, and resources to local, state, and regional land use professionals and elected officials seeking to prevent and resolve land use disputes. The policy report provides advice about designing, administering, and
Contents PROLOGUE 8 INTRODUCTION 10-11 1 WHY LAND 13 1.1 Land, power and democracy 14 1.2Land and conflict 16 1.3 Land and development 16 1.4 Land and organized crime 18 2. MORE LAND IN FEWER HANDS 21 2.1 The largest 1% of farms occupy over half of agricultural land 23 2.2 The smallest 80% of farms occupy less than 13% of land 25 2.3 The gender gap in access to land 27
the Text Summarizing and Responding Summaries Summarizing and Responding – Keyword Summaries 83 Waste More, Want More, Grade 12 Activity 9D: Summarizing and Responding – Keyword Summarizing and Responding – Rhetorical Précis Peer Feedback 84 Good Food/Bad Food, Grade 9 Activity 13D:
land. Without a clear land registry this is a cause of complex land disputes. Many land disputes in Mogadishu could be solved by establishing a well-functioning land registry. However, the land registry issue is linked to a more general lack of interest in making justice work because “political disorder” enables illegal land grabbing.
urban land is owned by the public sector, land is by far the most valuable asset on the . In 1990, the State Council formally affirmed land leasing as public policy. By 1992, Shanghai and Beijing had adopted land leasing as local practice, and it . The purchaser of a land lease acquires land rights for a period of 40 to 70 years, depending .
The variety of land use and land cover data needs is exceedingly broad. Current land use and land cov er data are needed for equalization of tax assess ments in many States. Land use and land cover data also are needed by Federal, State, and local agencies for water-resource inventory, flood control, water Cited by: 4883Publish Year: 1976Author: James R. Anderson, Ernest E. Hardy,
the land use/ land cover maps prepared for the two different years using multi-date satellite data i.e. 2005-06 and 2011-12. The distribution of land use/ land cover classes in the study area in 2005-06 and 2011-12 (Map 3 & 4) is represented in Table 1. Table1: Statistics of land use / land cover
Data Sources: Land Cover USGS 2011, Rivers and Streams 2017 USGS National Hydrography Dataset, Road centerlines and Municpal Boundaries 2017 NYS GIS Program Office, Feature location names 2018 USGS. Town of Putnam Valley Other Town Boundaries Tax Parcels Rivers & Streams Land Cover (2011) Open Water Developed, Open Space Developed, Low Intensity
Asam folat dalam tubuh berfungsi sebagai co-enzym mempunyai dua efek fisiologis utama yaitu sebagai faktor enzim sintesis deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) dan ribonucleic acid (RNA) yang berperan pada replikasi sel. Asam folat berfungsi untuk pembentukan materi genetik di dalam sel tubuh, selain itu asam folat juga berfungsi untuk pembentukan sel darah merah dan sel darah putih di sumsum tulang .
