COORDINATED PLANNING IN MICHIGAN - …research.policyarchive.org/5493.pdfFor Schils and her neighbors, the story of the distribution center had a happy ending. But one element of the

COORDINATEDPLANNING

IN MICHIGAN

T H R E E C A S E S T U D I E ST H R E E C A S E S T U D I E ST H R E E C A S E S T U D I E ST H R E E C A S E S T U D I E ST H R E E C A S E S T U D I E S

PIRGIMEducation Fund

COORDINACOORDINACOORDINACOORDINACOORDINATED PLANNINGTED PLANNINGTED PLANNINGTED PLANNINGTED PLANNINGIN MICHIGANIN MICHIGANIN MICHIGANIN MICHIGANIN MICHIGAN

THREE CASE STUDIESTHREE CASE STUDIESTHREE CASE STUDIESTHREE CASE STUDIESTHREE CASE STUDIES

TONY DUTZIK AND BRIAN IMUS

PIRGIM EDUCATION FUND

JANUARY 2002

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe express our deepest gratitude to the Beldon Fund for their financial support of this project, and to

Peter M. Wege for his financial support in launching the PIRGIM Education Fund's Land Use Program.

This report would not have been possible were it not for the help of all those who took time from theirbusy schedules to be interviewed or provide information for this project. Special thanks go out to JimLively of the Michigan Land Use Institute and Andy Bowman of the Grand Valley Metropolitan Councilfor the additional perspective they gave to this project. Thanks also to Conan Smith, Land StewardshipDirector of the Michigan Environmental Council, for his help with this report and PIRGIM EducationFund's work on land use issues.

Many thanks to Susan Rakov and Brad Heavner for their editorial and technical help. Also, thanks tothe staff at the Traverse City and Frankenmuth convention and visitors bureaus for helping to locateillustrations and to Chris Chatto for his design work.

The authors alone bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of PIRGIMEducation Fund. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarilyreflect the views of our funders.

Copyright 2002 PIRGIM Education Fund

The Public Interest Research Group in Michigan (PIRGIM) Education Fund is a nonprofit, non parti-san 501(c)(3) organization that works as an advocate for the public interest.

For additional copies of this report, send $10 (including shipping) to:

PIRGIM Education Fund122 S. Main St.Suite 370Ann Arbor, MI 48104

For more information about PIRGIM and the PIRGIM Education Fund, please contact our office at734-662-6597, or visit the PIRGIM web site at www.pirgim.org.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9GRAND RAPIDS: TOWARD A COOPERATIVE FUTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

THE GRAND VALLEY METRO COUNCIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13PROFILE: GRAND RAPIDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14LIMITING SPRAWL: THE UTILITY BOUNDARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15PLANNING TOGETHER: A NEW VISION FOR EAST BELTLINE AVENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17A “METRO” STATE OF MIND: FOSTERING LINKS ACROSS MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18CHALLENGES REMAIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19INDICATIONS OF SUCCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

FRANKENMUTH: TWO MUNICIPALITIES, ONE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21PROFILE: FRANKENMUTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22COMMON HERITAGE, COMMON GOALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22INDICATIONS OF SUCCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE MOUNTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

TRAVERSE CITY: A DIFFERENT KIND OF COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25BUSINESS PROMOTES COMMON PRINCIPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26PROFILE: TRAVERSE CITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27PROTECTING FARMLAND AND WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29IS TRUE COORDINATION NEXT? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

MAKING IT WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31FOUR FOUNDATIONS OF SUCCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31FOUR OBSTACLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32WORKS IN PROGRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

COORDINATED PLANNING IN MICHIGAN6

THREE CASE STUDIES 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Sprawling development patterns havemade their mark on Michigan in thepast several decades, resulting in in-

creased traffic congestion, loss of farmlandand open spaces, water and air pollution, and,in many cases, inflated tax bills as local gov-ernments struggle to provide needed publicservices.

Despite these pressing threats to the envi-ronment and quality of life, community plan-ning in Michigan is most often characterizedby a lack of coordination. The 1,800 units ofgovernment with responsibility for planningin the state often fail - or refuse - to coordi-nate their plans with one another. Even withinindividual units of government, the planningthat does take place is of varying quality andconsistency, and the application of the prin-ciples embodied in those plans is spotty.

The result is a disjointed approach to plan-ning that renders many Michigan communi-ties powerless to deal with sprawl. Theinconsistency of local plans also leaves mu-nicipalities vulnerable to legal action by de-velopers - actions that further limit thewillingness of municipalities to take aggres-sive action against sprawl.

One of the most important solutions is toencourage better coordinated planning be-tween municipalities and within governments.In a growing number of Michigan communi-ties, government officials, business leaders,and ordinary citizens are engaging in unprec-edented mutual planning efforts to ensuretheir regions' future health and viability. Thereis increasing evidence that these efforts -many of which are still in their early stages -are making significant strides in the fight tocurtail sprawl.

This report spotlights three examples ofwhere coordinated planning and other ex-amples of inter-municipal coordination areworking to protect farmland, safeguard wa-terways, protect taxpayers, and enhanceMichiganders' quality of life.

Grand RapidsThe challenge: The Grand Rapids-Holland-Muskegon area is the sixth most sprawlingmetropolitan area of more than one millionpeople, according to a recent study by USAToday. Over the last two decades, while thepopulation of Kent County (which includesGrand Rapids) increased by 18 percent, thecounty's urbanized area grew by 80 percent.Loss of farmland, traffic congestion, and ur-ban decay are major local concerns.The response: The Grand Valley Metropoli-tan Council (GVMC), a consortium of 31 lo-cal and two county governments, has workedfor a decade to draw a common blueprint forthe region's development and foster an atmo-sphere of growing inter-municipal coopera-tion.The results:• An urban utility boundary has been estab-

lished for Grand Rapids and several of itsneighboring communities - in effect, draw-ing a line beyond which sprawl may notproceed. The boundary is part of a pack-age of sewer and water policies that seekto make new growth pay its own way andto encourage coordinated action on a widerange of regional issues.

• New sub-regional planning effortsspawned or inspired by GVMC have ledto an innovative land-use plan for a five-mile stretch of highway and cooperationon new ordinances to protect water qual-ity in Bear Creek.

• The population of Grand Rapids rose dur-ing the 1990s, bucking the trend of otherlarge Michigan cities, while pressure to de-velop farmland in the region has eased rela-tive to the rest of Michigan.

FrankenmuthThe challenge: In the 1970s, the populationof Frankenmuth City and FrankenmuthTownship jumped 28 percent. Increasing de-mand for residential development threatened


farmland in the township and created frictionbetween the two governments.The response: In the early 1980s, the cityand township created a joint master plan togovern the communities' future growth. Cityand township planning commissions meettogether on a regular basis to review devel-opment plans.The results:• The city and township enacted an urban

growth boundary in the mid-1980s that haschanneled new residential developmentclose to the city while preserving thetownship's rural character. Populationgrowth has stabilized at about five to sixpercent per decade.

Traverse CityThe challenge: The population of the five-county Traverse City region has doubled since1970. The five counties each ranked amongthe top 20 fastest-growing counties in Michi-gan during the 1990s. In just a five-year spanduring the mid-1990s, Grand Traverse Countylost 11 percent of its cropland to development.Traffic congestion and concern about pollu-tion of Grand Traverse Bay are consistentlyrated as top concerns in polls of Traverse City-area residents.The response: Business leaders, workingthrough the New Designs for Growth projectof the local Chamber of Commerce, havepushed communities to adopt common plan-ning and zoning principles to protect naturalresources and improve the quality of newdevelopment. Meanwhile, small groups ofmunicipalities have begun to cooperate onissues such as land-use planning, farmlandpreservation, and watershed protection.The results:• To date, 65 of the region's 93 municipali-

ties have adopted the common develop-ment principles supported by NewDesigns.

• New projects, such as a $100 millionmixed-use development in Traverse City,are more likely to follow good urban de-sign principles and are increasingly locatedin already built-up areas.

• Five Grand Traverse County municipali-ties are working to develop a purchase ofdevelopment rights program similar to aprogram adopted in a nearby municipalitythat has already saved 1,500 acres of farm-land.

The three successful initiatives profiled inthis report share several characteristics:• They seek out citizen input early and of-

ten.• They are committed to process.• They respect the perspectives of individual

communities and their right to home rule.• They have organizations that are built to

last.Yet coordinated planning efforts in these

communities also face significant obstacles.The biggest such obstacle is outmoded state

planning laws that limit communities' flex-ibility in forming effective coordinated plan-ning bodies, do not ensure the consistency ofplans made by different levels of government,and stoke, rather than calm, inter-governmen-tal rivalries.

A thorough overhaul of the state's existingplanning laws is needed to give citizens thetools to control their future, establish work-able frameworks for inter-governmental co-operation, enhance home rule, and encouragelong-term comprehensive planning at all lev-els of government.

Such an overhaul would spark more Michi-gan communities to form coordinated plan-ning ventures similar to those highlighted inthis report - enabling those communities todevelop creative and effective policies to stopthe sprawl that is degrading Michigan's envi-ronment, economy and quality of life.


INTRODUCTION

Aretta Schils’ home in northern Monroe County looks out on 1,000 acres of soybeans and corn. The quiet, ru-

ral character of the area is what keeps herthere.

But two years ago, what Schils describesas the “Mayberry R.F.D.” feel of her neigh-borhood nearly changed forever.

In 1999, General Motors and the Ann Ar-bor Railroad announced plans to build a mas-sive auto distribution facility on the ruralMilan Township land across the road fromSchils’ home. Asphalt was to cover more thanone-third of the 1,000-acre parcel. Severaltrains and an estimated 450 trucks per daywere to rumble through the town, bringingcars in and out of the facility.1

“We would have gotten the sound, thesmell, the light,” Schils said.2

The facility did not fit into MilanTownship’s existing master plan, which wasenacted in 1979. So township officials movedto change the plan, and the zoning ordinancethat implements it, to accommodate GM’sproposal.

Schils joined with a group of local residentsfrom throughout the community to fight therezoning and the revisions to the township’smaster plan. In February 2000, the group wona referendum to block the rezoning. Eightmonths later, GM and the railroad droppedtheir plan.

For Schils and her neighbors, the story ofthe distribution center had a happy ending.But one element of the battle still irks her.Despite their proximity to the site, Schils andher neighbors had no official voice in MilanTownship’s decision. The reason: they livein London Township, whose border withMilan Township runs along the road in frontof Schils’ home.

Under Michigan law, London Townshipresidents and public officials had no say overthe location of the distribution center – eventhough the proposed facility posed a directconflict with the township’s land-use plans.“As a governmental body, I can’t go over

there and tell them what to do,” said LondonSupervisor Kris Neuvirth in 1999 in the midstof the GM dispute.3

“Our side of the road was going to be agri-cultural and recreational. We’ve got the Sa-line River right behind our property,” Schilssaid. “(The center) just did not fit into thisarea.”

One doesn’t have to look far to find otherexamples of where lack of cooperation amongmunicipalities can lead to poorly planneddevelopment.

In fact, one only has to drive the 20 or somiles to the city of Monroe. In 1998, the city’sdirector of community development and plan-ning, James Tischler, found out throughcounty officials that a neighboring townshipwas considering amendments to its masterplan. When Tischler reviewed the plan, hefound seven conflicts with the city’s ownmaster plan – including planned industrial andhigh-volume commercial activity in the town-ship located directly opposite existing resi-dential and recreational areas in the city.

Concerned, Tischler sent comments on theplan to officials in the neighboring townshipand to the county. County planning officialsacknowledged the comments and includedthem in their reaction to the township’s mas-ter plan. But Tischler said that, even threeyears later, “we have never yet received anyresponse” from the township, which thenadopted the master plan over the objectionsof the city and county.4

Tischler wants to avoid a similar scenarioas the city of Monroe draws up its new mas-ter plan. City officials formally notified ap-proximately 70 groups about the process, andfive are actively participating, he said – in-cluding the township that failed to respondto Monroe’s concerns and another townshipthat shares a border with the city.5

Yet, early last July, Tischler found outthrough a newspaper story that the othertownship bordering Monroe is in the processof revising its master plan – a fact that hadnever been communicated to Tischler despite


the community’s cooperation on Monroe’smaster plan. “I was stunned,” he said.

When it comes to land use planning inMichigan, coordination and cooperationamong municipalities are the exception, notthe rule. Across Michigan, about 1,800 gov-ernmental entities – cities, townships, vil-lages, and counties – have the power to makeland-use decisions.6 Just over two-thirds ofthose entities engage in jurisdiction-wide zon-ing.7

Those communities that do engage in plan-ning and zoning often fail – or refuse – towork in concert with their neighboring com-munities. In many cases, age-old rivalriesover issues like annexation and detachment,access to municipal services, and pursuit ofdevelopment that will build up the local taxbase, prevent effective collaboration. Distrustalso often exists between municipal andcounty governments, diminishing the rolecounty planning agencies play in fosteringregional responses to sprawl.

Meanwhile, the frequent lack of consis-tency within municipalities with regard to thedevelopment and enforcement of master plansand zoning ordinances fuels legal challengesfiled by developers to those policies. The fearof litigation, in turn, dissuades many com-munities from taking innovative or aggres-sive action to limit the impact of sprawl.

Michigan’s existing planning and zoninglaws allow, and in some cases perpetuate,these problems. The state’s four planningenabling acts, which date to 1931, allow forplanning at the county, regional and metro-politan levels, but they do not guarantee thatthose plans are coordinated with each other,or with local plans. And the laws fail to pro-vide for alternative arrangements, such asjoint planning commissions shared by twomunicipalities, that could foster greater mu-nicipal cooperation.

In late 2001, the legislature took a first steptoward improving coordination by requiringplanning bodies to share their land-use planswith neighboring communities and providingthose communities with the opportunity to

comment on those plans. But the legislation,while laudable, fails to deal with the numer-ous other provisions of Michigan planninglaw that hinder inter-governmental coordina-tion.

Some might argue that such inter-govern-mental conflicts are an inevitable result ofMichigan’s treasured tradition of home rule.Yet, across Michigan, there is a growing re-alization that the major land-use challengesconfronting local communities do not respectmunicipal boundaries.

One community’s decision to build a shop-ping mall leads to another community’s traf-fic jams. One community’s boomingresidential development forces sewer expan-sion that causes rates in other communitiesto rise. One community’s loss of farmland andopen space allows more polluted runoff toflow into a river enjoyed by the next commu-nity downstream.

In large cities and small, rural communi-ties and suburban enclaves, citizens, businessowners and governmental leaders are begin-ning to conclude that cooperation, not com-petition, is the key to preserving the true spiritof home rule – the ability of citizens in everycommunity to make the decisions that shapetheir future.

And in a few pockets within Michigan, gov-ernment officials and citizens from differentmunicipalities are – often for the first time inhistory – sitting together on a regular basis todiscuss the issues affecting their communi-ties and how best to plan for future growth.

The three case studies presented here offera ray of hope in the fight against sprawl. Theydemonstrate that citizens, government offi-cials and business leaders from different mu-nicipalities and different walks of life canwork together to develop a cooperative vi-sion for their communities that avoids thepollution, congestion, alienation, and loss ofaesthetic beauty that so often results fromsprawl.

And, even more hopefully, they demon-strate that those visions can be translated intoeffective action.


The story of Grand Rapids and its suburbs over the last 40 years is the storyof many big cities in Michigan and

elsewhere.Between 1966 and 1990, the city lost nearly

20,000 residents – or about 10 percent of itspopulation – as new highways opened up newopportunities for life in the suburbs. Povertyand disinvestment followed in their wake.Over the last 25 years, the number of censustracts in the city in which at least one-fifth ofthe residents are poor has increased from 12to 22.8

The transformation was even greater in theformerly open lands outside the city limits.While the population of Grand Rapids itselfwas dropping, the population of the metro-politan area (which also includes the cities ofMuskegon and Holland) was tripling.9 Wa-ter, sewer and road systems struggled to keepup with the growth, as subdivisions rose onwhat had been farmland.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the consumptionof land outside Grand Rapids far exceededthe rate of population growth. Kent County,which includes Grand Rapids, saw its urban-ized area grow by 80 percent, while its popu-lation increased by only 18 percent.10 In the1990s alone, the amount of developed land

in suburban Grand Rapids increased by nearly30 percent.11

By the year 2001, Grand Rapids attractednational attention when it was named the sixthmost sprawling metropolitan area of one mil-lion residents or more by USA Today.12

But Grand Rapids differs from manysprawling communities in one respect. Forthe last decade, citizens, businesses and gov-ernment officials have been working togetherto develop alternatives to sprawl.

The GrandValley Metro CouncilThose efforts began in 1990 with the forma-tion of the Grand Valley Metropolitan Coun-cil. Originally made up of nine municipalitiesand Kent County, the council now incorpo-rates 31 local and two county governments.14

Andy Bowman, planning director ofGVMC, said the organization arose from aseries of events in the mid-1980s. Local mu-nicipalities, he said, were looking for waysto work together outside of the moribundstate-created regional planning agency thatserviced the area, and pushed for the passageof legislation that would allow the formationof GVMC.15

GRAND RAPIDS:TOWARD A COOPERATIVE FUTURE

Phot

o: M

ichi

gan

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n


That desire, he said, was compounded byan embarrassing incident that showed theweakness of regional planning. “Two citiesin our single metro area, Grand Rapids andWyoming, built parallel water pipes to LakeMichigan; about 40 miles worth,” Bowmansaid. “It was a startling and expensive ex-ample of parochialism in our metro area.”

The council’s first major task was thecompletion of the 1994 Metropolitan Devel-opment Blueprint. Developed after 18 monthsof consultation by citizens and planners, theBlueprint lays out a shared vision for the fu-ture development of the region, emphasizingthemes of protecting open space, creatingcompact centers of regional activity, and pro-moting compact, livable communities.16 The

Profile: Grand Rapids13

POPULATIONSince 1970, the population of the four-county GrandRapids metropolitan region has grown at a fasterpace than that of Kent County. The city of GrandRapids added residents in the 1980s and 1990s,returning to its 1970 population.

Kent Co. Metro Area1992 (acres) 154,558 557,6541997 (acres) 149,898 542,625% loss 3% 3%

Blueprint went on to detail specific “visions”for land use, transportation, utilities, informa-tion exchange, and natural resources.

Seven years later, those visions are begin-ning to be realized – some through direct co-ordination by GVMC and some through thework of other entities.• An urban utility boundary has been cre-

ated through part of the area to reduce thepressure to develop open spaces. Sewerrates for many area communities have beenrecalibrated to ensure that existing resi-dents aren’t forced to pick up the tab fornew development.

• Development along a five-mile stretch ofhighway is being carefully planned to pro-tect open space and encourage mixed uses.

LAND VALUE PER ACRELand values in Kent County are now nearly four timesgreater than the state average, while metro area landvalues increased faster than those of the state as awhole. Increasing land valuations can put addedpressure on farm owners to sell their land for devel-opment.

CROPLANDThe Grand Rapids region lost only three percent ofits farmland during the mid-1990s, compared to theoverall state rate of loss of nearly 10 percent.

$-

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

1991 2000

Stat

e Eq

ualiz

ed V

alue

per

Acr

e

Kent County Metro area State average

-200,000400,000600,000800,000

1,000,0001,200,0001,400,000

1970 1980 1990 2000 2020(proj.)

Popu

latio

n

Grand Rapids Kent County Metro area


• Investment in downtown Grand Rapids ison the rise and the city is in the midst of anambitious revision of its own masterplan.A cooperative framework has beencreated to help municipalities deal with theoften-contentious issues of annexation anddetachment.

• Municipalities have teamed up to protectthe health of streams affected by runofffrom new development and are beginningto engage in other sub-regional planningefforts.

But perhaps the council’s biggest successhas been in achieving what a summary of theBlueprint listed as its number one vision: de-veloping a “metro” perspective.

Limiting Sprawl:The Utility BoundaryWater and sewer service is the lifeblood oflarge-scale development. Without it, devel-opment – if it occurs at all – remains widelydispersed as residents and businesses dependon well water and septic systems. With it,formerly rural areas are opened to unlimitedgrowth.

In Michigan, cities have typically been oftwo minds about the extension of water andsewer service beyond their boundaries. A fewhave insisted on annexing any nearby prop-erties that receive city services. Most, how-ever, have gladly extended their lines beyondcity limits, hoping that the added customerswould defray the costs of providing water andsewer to city residents.

That was the case in Grand Rapids, wherethe city began expanding its services to neigh-boring communities in the 1960s – expansionthat helped fuel those communities’ explo-sive growth.

By the mid-1990s, city officials and lead-ers of neighboring communities were begin-ning to take a step back to look at the impactof sprawl on the region and the role utilitypolicies could play in restraining it.

Grand Rapids Deputy City Manager EricDeLong, who has been involved in every stepof the process, said the initial discussionsabout a new water/sewer agreement arosefrom discussions taking place at the GVMCabout issues such as growth. “People got toknow each other there,” DeLong said ofGVMC. “They’d had some discussions. Itwasn’t like they were strangers anymore.”18

In 1996, with its contract with Grand Rap-ids Township about to expire, the City ofGrand Rapids saw an opportunity to incor-porate the growing regional consensus onsprawl into a new water and sewer policy.

Grand Rapids Township expressed an in-terest in bringing other customer communi-ties into the process. Over the next two years,the parties took part in intensive negotiationsthat resulted in two innovative agreements(see sidebar), both geared toward limitingsprawl.

Perhaps the most important provision in thenew water and sewer agreement was the cre-ation of an Urban Utility Boundary (UUB)that sets a limit on the outward expansion ofservice areas through part of the region.

FEATURES OF GRAND RAPIDS’WATER AND SEWER PLAN17

• Establishes a Utility Service District, which in-cludes all areas currently receiving services andthose where development is now occurring. Allareas within the USD will be approved for utilityservices.

• Establishes an Urban Utility Boundary, which in-cludes the USD and those areas in which urbandevelopment is expected in next 20 years.

• Areas outside the boundary are protected or re-served for future development.

• Sets up an Urban Cooperation Board, a new re-gional planning partnership.

• Increases connection fees for new customers andties part of the cost of water and sewer connec-tions to the size of the lot. This reduces the costto existing customers of system expansions.


The utility boundary is similar in spirit tourban growth boundaries that have beenadopted in Portland, Oregon and other citiesacross the country over the last few decades,in which all developments outside the bound-aries must be approved by voters. In effect, itestablishes a line on the map beyond whichlarge-scale development cannot take place.

The policy concentrates developmentwithin the Utility Service District (USD) – asubset of the UUB that includes all areas cur-rently serviced by water and sewer and thosethat are in the process of being developed –by guaranteeing water and sewer extensionsto proposed developments within the district.Expansion of the USD over time would bepossible, but not outside the UUB.

The agreement also seeks to make growthpay for itself by increasing sewer connectionfees from $100 to $500 initially, and eventu-ally to $2,300.19 Those developing larger lotswill pay more in fees, as will those in mu-nicipalities that choose to extend services overa larger surface area. The aim of the connec-tion fee increases is to make those respon-sible for new developments pay a greatershare of the cost of system improvements –rather than forcing existing customers to paythrough increases in their water and sewerrates.

The second compact – an urban coopera-tion agreement – creates a new board to fo-cus resources on regional issues ranging fromfarmland preservation to recreation.

The Urban Cooperation Board (UCB) in-cludes all signatories to the water and seweragreement and is open to other communitiesthat choose to join. It is supported by a $1 percapita levy on member communities.20 TheUCB parallels a similar board created by thewater and sewer agreement that is intendedto give customer communities, for the firsttime, a say in the operation of the water andsewer system.

DeLong said the UCB fills a need in thecommunity that GVMC has not been able to

fill. “The metro council has been very im-portant to our region, but they don’t have awealth of resources for key things,” he said.“What the UCB tries to do is accumulate re-sources and use them to accomplish a regionalvision.”

In its first round of grants, issued this year,the UCB has dedicated funding to GVMC’s“Blueprint II” regional planning process, alocal museum, land preservation activities andother projects.

But the new arrangements are not withoutcontroversy. The North Kent Sewer Author-ity, which buys wholesale Grand Rapidssewer service from the Kent County Depart-ment of Public Works on behalf of five north-ern Kent County communities, is suing infederal court to overturn the plan, seeking, inDeLong’s view, to “return to the former sta-tus quo.”

Without the participation of the northernKent County communities (which are con-templating building their own sewage treat-ment plant) and other municipalities in theregion, the boundary may be limited in itseffectiveness. However, it remains a step inthe right direction that could – in concert withmore broad-based growth management ef-forts – limit the outward spread of develop-ment in the region.

Planning Together:A New Vision forEast Beltline AvenueEast Beltline Avenue on the north side ofGrand Rapids is a virtual invitation to sprawl-ing development. East Beltline is convenientto downtown Grand Rapids and to two majorexpressways carrying traffic to Muskegon andHolland. And it has a significant amount ofland open for potential development.

It’s also the kind of place that has testedthe cooperation of Michigan municipalities.The road traverses three municipalities – theCity of Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids Town-


ship, and Plainfield Township – in just a five-mile stretch.

At first, according to GVMC’s Bowman,the typical inter-municipal tensions werepresent in abundance. “Basically, the town-ships were attempting to preserve and the citywas hoping to develop,” he said. “Serviceboundaries, traffic, zoning and planning wereall being hotly contested for years.”

GVMC brought the parties together in aneffort to hash out their differences. The re-sult of their efforts, the North East BeltlinePlanning Study, is a departure from sprawl-style development. Planners divided the roadinto five one-mile segments, with each milededicated to a specific mix of uses based onits topography. Closest to the city, and near-est the highways, are zones for office, retailand institutional uses. Farther out are areasdesignated for residential and agricultural use.

While the plan for the area is only threeyears old, it is already leading to concreteresults.

In the Knapp’s Corner area, construction iswrapping up on Celebration Village, a mixed-use development anchored by a 20-screenmultiplex cinema. The development is char-acterized by a “main street”-style center.Parking lots will be used by office workersin the daytime and theater-goers at night,eliminating the need for about 600 parkingspaces. The development of the village cen-

ter also creates the kind of node that could beserved by public transportation.

Bowman said the planning study has re-sulted in better coordination of architecturalfeatures and access points at various pointsalong the highway, as well a greater mix ofuses within discrete “village” or “main street”areas. But he acknowledges that one impor-tant element – high density residential use –is still missing. “With a greater residentialpresence and connectivity, we believe the areawill become a more ‘walkable’ or ‘livable’experience.”

To GVMC Chair Jim Buck, the EastBeltline process was a validation of the valueof coordinated planning. “I think that whatthe study showed was what all of us hopedmany years ago would evolve out of theGrand Valley Metro Council – our ability tobring together cities and townships to sit downat the same table to iron out problems, to de-velop philosophies and programs,” Buck saidin 1999.21

The spirit of inter-municipal cooperationevident in the North East Beltline study hasalso taken hold in other “sub-regional” plan-ning efforts, and helped spur GVMC to tacklethe traditionally divisive issue of annexation.

In 1999, the council adopted a series of poli-cies designed to bring order to land transferissues. The policies reinforce member com-munities’ commitment to share responsibil-

The North East Beltline development plan divides the area along the road into five separatedevelopment zones, with more intense uses closest to the city, a “village center” district inthe middle, and more dispersed agricultural and residential uses farthest away.

Sour

ce: G

rand

Val

ley

Met

ro C

ounc

il


ity for planning and decision-making and setout detailed ground rules for future land trans-fers.22

A “Metro” State of Mind:Fostering Links AcrossMunicipal BoundariesUnited Growth for Kent CountyIn the late 1990s, the Michigan State Univer-sity Extension, with support from the FreyFoundation, launched a new effort to get citi-zens talking across the region’s urban-ruraldivide.

The resulting organization, United Growthfor Kent County, is made up of two commit-tees – an urban committee and a rural com-mittee – which meet separately.

The goal of the organization is to get peoplefrom both types of communities to see thatthere is a link between disinvestment in theurban core, destruction of farmland, and othersprawl-related problems. Members of the ru-ral committee have taken tours of hard-hitinner-city Grand Rapids neighborhoods,while city residents have learned about howsprawl is eating away at rural lands outsidethe city.

“It’s really been built up that we share thesecommon goals and these common values,”Project Director Kendra Wills said, noting

that one suburban school superintendent evenproposed a tax on residents of outlying areasdevoted to Grand Rapids city schools.

The effort has also sparked citizen involve-ment within communities. The City of GrandRapids, for instance, is rewriting its masterplan for the first time in 30 years, and theprocess is weighted heavily toward solicit-ing input and involvement from residents inthe city’s neighborhoods.

Ultimately, organizations like UnitedGrowth hope to create a common understand-ing of the issues that will enable citizens ineach municipality to build a stronger regionalvision.

The Bear Creek WatershedIn the early 1990s, officials in suburban Can-non Township began to become concernedabout the potential impact of runoff pollutionfrom new development on the creek, whichis a tributary of the Grand River.

Cannon was the fastest growing municipal-ity in Kent County during the 1980s, experi-encing population growth of 59 percent.23

Testing conducted at the time identified sedi-mentation and high bacteria levels as themajor water quality threats to the creek.24

“The main concern was that all of a suddenthere were all these developments proposedin the watershed near the creek,” said BonnieShupe, who currently serves as CannonTownship’s clerk and watershed administra-tor.25

In 1992, the township applied for and re-ceived a grant from the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency for a project to educatethe public about runoff pollution to the creekand to develop local ordinances to protect it.The most significant achievement of the grantwas the passage of a new zoning overlay or-dinance in Cannon Township that requirespollutant-filtering buffer zones for new de-velopments near the creek.

The next step was to develop an ordinanceto deal with stormwater runoff into the creek.

West Michigan residents lay out a conser-vation and development plan for the areaas part of a planning workshop sponsoredby United Growth for Kent County.

Phot

o: U

nite

d G

row

th fo

r Ken

t Cou

nty


At the same time that Shupe was beginningthat task, in 1998, she found out that KentCounty was working to develop a modelstormwater ordinance. The township mergedits effort with the county’s, working for threeyears to develop, and in the township’s case,to pass, the policy. Shupe is now working withothers to shop the ordinance to other munici-palities around the region.

Shupe is also meeting regularly with offi-cials from two neighboring townships tocome up with a model wetlands protectionordinance that all the townships can adopt.“We’re learning that it’s easier to work to-gether than to do our own thing,” she said.“If we pass a restrictive ordinance to protectthe creek, and (upstream communities) don’t,it’s not going to help us.”

While regional cooperation has been keyin the watershed effort, so has the leadershipof Cannon Township, which has paid to keepShupe working half-time on watershed issuessince the EPA grant expired in 1998.

West MichiganStrategic Alliance

To broaden the purview of regional plan-ning, a new organization – the West Michi-gan Strategic Alliance – was formed earlierthis year to chart out a 25-year blueprint forthe region.

The alliance’s objective transcends the typi-cal concerns of metropolitan councils likeGVMC, taking into account issues such aseducation and health and human services aswell as regional planning staples such as land-use and transportation policy.

Grand Rapids Deputy City Manager EricDeLong, who has been involved in the alli-ance, said that while Grand Rapids-area gov-ernments are doing what they can to controlgrowth, a look at the broader region showsthat “we’re sprawling like crazy.”

DeLong said he hoped the alliance wouldenable communities throughout westernMichigan to share ideas on curbing sprawl,

much as Grand Rapids-area communitieshave done for the last decade.

Challenges RemainDespite GVMC’s success in promoting co-

ordinated planning and regional cooperation,major challenges remain for the region’s anti-sprawl efforts.

With so many regional planning efforts un-derway, one challenge of the GVMC is tobring coordination to the various types ofplans being created.

“(T)here is no direct tie between water andsewer plans, transit plans, open space andrecreational plans and a couple of otherthings,” said GVMC Executive Director JerryFelix in 2000. “You can’t deal with land-useissues and put in water and sewer withoutregard to transportation issues.”26

Another challenge is the continuing dispar-ity in resources between urban Grand Rapidsand the growing suburban communities at itsfringe. A 1997 Frey Foundation study foundthat poverty has deepened in Grand Rapidsover the last 25 years and that pockets of pov-erty have spread into nearby communitiessuch as Kentwood, Wyoming andCutlerville.27

The costs of providing infrastructure to newdevelopments outside the city could, somefear, reduce the amount of money availablefor Grand Rapids to revitalize its schools andits own infrastructure. However, GVMC’sBowman said the issue of revenue sharinghas, as yet, generated little interest amonglocal political leaders, and will likely takemany years of consensus-building to achieve.

The region also faces difficult decisions ontransportation issues. Transportation has beena divisive issue within the region, withGVMC supporting the $400 million SouthBeltline expressway, which is currently un-der construction. The move angered someenvironmentalists and anti-sprawl activistswho point to highways’ crucial role in spread-ing development outward.


“The weakness of the transportation linkin metro Grand Rapids is due in part to thefact that transit was simply not a priority ofMetro Council or the Blueprint despite theperception that it is,” said Julie Stoneman,director of land programs at the Michigan En-vironmental Council, in 1999.28

In recent years, GVMC has attempted totake a more active role in promoting publictransportation. In 1998, GVMC and the GrandRapids Area Transit Authority worked to-gether to create a new, 20-year public trans-portation plan for the area that includes lightrail service to Holland, Kalamazoo, Lansingand Muskegon, integrating transit into newdevelopments, and using transit improve-ments to shape urban growth.29 It remains tobe seen, however, when and to what extentthose plans will materialize.

Indications of SuccessDespite the many challenges, there are signs

that the anti-sprawl efforts of GVMC, otherregional partnerships, and local citizens andofficials are beginning to make a difference.

The City of Grand Rapids was one of onlythree Michigan cities of 100,000 people ormore to gain residents during the 1990s, add-ing more than 7,000 people, or 4.6 percent,to its population.30

That population gain could be due, in part,to the heavy recent investment in revitaliza-tion of the urban core. Millions of dollars havebeen spent in recent years on a new conven-tion center, university campuses, and otherimprovements designed to bring new life tothe city.

While the area around Grand Rapids hascontinued to add population at a faster ratethan the city, the region is losing a smallerpercentage of its farmland than the state as awhole. Between 1992 and 1997, the metro-politan area lost three percent of its cropland,compared with nearly 10 percent for all ofMichigan.

New outlying developments – like thoseplanned for East Beltline Avenue – are morelikely to embody good urban design prin-ciples than their predecessors. And the urbanutility boundary should do even more to fo-cus development close to existing centers.

What is perhaps most remarkable aboutGVMC’s success is that it has come aboutsolely as a result of voluntary cooperationamong municipalities. “We can’t tax. Wecan’t draft legislation. We can’t pass laws. Wecan’t enforce anything,” said Buck in 2000.“But when a group comes together on a par-ticular issue, that carries some weight.”31


Frankenmuth is known far and wide asMichigan’s “Little Bavaria.” Butwithin Michigan planning circles, the

Saginaw County city and the township thatsurrounds it are known for their success incoordinating planning to control growth. Fornearly two decades, city and township offi-cials have set aside the typical urban/ruralconflicts to put forward a cooperative visionof their region.

Unlike many communities fighting sprawl,Frankenmuth is not located within a rapidlygrowing region. The population of theSaginaw-Bay City-Midland metropolitan areagrew by less than one percent during the1990s, while the population of SaginawCounty itself declined.Yet, on a more locallevel, growth pressures remain. Frankenmuthsits in the second ring of townships surround-ing the City of Saginaw. In the 1970s,Saginaw began suffering the staggering popu-lation declines that have led to the loss ofabout a third of the city’s population over thelast three decades. In the 1980s, amid a gen-eral economic decline, nearly every munici-pality in the region lost population.

FRANKENMUTH:TWO MUNICIPALITIES, ONE PLAN

Pho

to: F

rank

enm

uth

Con

vent

ion

and

Visi

tors

Bur

eau

When the economy picked up again in the1990s, the inner ring of suburbs surroundingSaginaw did not recover with it, and contin-ued to lose population. But in the belt of town-ships stretching from Frankenmuth eastwardthrough Tuscola County, the 1990s saw a re-surgence in residential development, withmany municipalities posting significant popu-lation gains.

That growth also led to the loss of farm-land. Between 1992 and 1997 – in the midstof a decade when the county’s population de-clined – Saginaw County lost eight percentof its cropland. The same USA Today indexthat highlighted sprawl in Grand Rapidsranked the Saginaw area fourth most sprawl-ing in the U.S. among metropolitan areas itssize.32

While Frankenmuth has been buffeted bymany of the same forces that have shapeddevelopment in the Saginaw region, it is, inmany ways, a special case.

For one thing, the city and township haveproven to be a consistent draw for new resi-dents, regardless of the state of the regionaleconomy. During the 1970s, the combinedpopulation of the city and township grew by28 percent, while the county population grewby less than four percent. In the 1980s,Frankenmuth city was one of only threeSaginaw County municipalities of more than1,000 people to gain population.

The city and township have also proven tobe unique in their willingness to work togetherto ensure that growth takes place in a steadyand orderly way.

Common Heritage,Common GoalsCharles Graham, city manager ofFrankenmuth city, said the cooperative spiritbetween the two municipalities goes backmany decades. The city and township, he said,


share “a common heritage, common back-ground, commonality of interests” datingback to the village of Frankenmuth’s found-ing by German settlers in 1845.34 Over theyears, the city and township have worked to-gether to support a common fire department,which helped keep the channels of commu-nication open.

Geography has also helped foster coopera-tion. Frankenmuth city is fortunate to be sur-rounded entirely by one township, rather thanbordered by three or four, a situation thatmakes it easier to develop coordinated efforts.

But for all the municipalities’ common his-tory and interests, it took a typical source ofurban/rural conflict – annexation – to bringabout the communities’ new relationship.

When he came to Frankenmuth as city man-ager in 1979 after stints in Colorado and Ari-

zona, Graham said he quickly recognized thetensions inherent in city-township relationsin Michigan. “I did see a basic built-in con-flict. It’s just undeniable that this conflict ex-ists anyplace in the state of Michigan,” hesaid, speaking of cities’ hunger for land onwhich to expand and townships’ desire to gaincity services without losing sovereignty.

The city had a long-standing policy of notextending water and sewer services beyondits boundaries, insisting on annexation of anynew area of the township that sought to re-ceive services. That policy gave them someleverage in ensuring that the city would beable to expand when it felt it needed to – eventhough it meant the short-term loss of poten-tial revenue for the water and sewer system.

But the policy also created conflict. In 1980,a family living across the road from an area

Profile: Frankenmuth

POPULATION33

At a time when Saginaw County’s population stag-nated, Frankenmuth has continued to grow. After asteep growth in population during the 1970s, suc-cessful land-use policies have helped maintain asteady rate of growth during the last two decades.

LAND VALUE PER ACREThe value of land in Saginaw County increased at alower rate than the state as a whole. Frankenmuthtownship officials say selling prices of land outsidethe township’s growth boundary have increased inrecent years.

CROPLANDDespite stagnating overall population, SaginawCounty continued to lose cropland during the 1990s,as development pushed further into the county’speriphery.

-1,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000

1970 1980 1990 2000

Popu

latio

n

Frankenmuth CityFrankenmuth Tow nshipCombined

$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000$9,000

1991 2000Stat

e Eq

ualiz

ed V

alue

per

Acr

e

Saginaw CoState Average

1992 (acres) 290,9101997 (acres) 268,428% loss 8%


with public water and sewer service soughtto be annexed by the city. The township hada policy that frowned on such “spot annex-ations,” bringing the matter to stalemate. Gra-ham helped the family make the case forannexation to the state’s boundary commis-sion, which adjudicates boundary disputesbetween municipalities. The commissionruled in the family’s favor.

The action set a precedent. A second town-ship resident applied for annexation to theboundary commission and was approved.Then a third began the process.

“At that point the township said, ‘We’refighting a losing battle here, why don’t wesee if we can take a different approach,’”Graham said. “I said, ‘What if we could allagree on some type of an overall plan thatwould be acceptable to both units of govern-ment?’”

So began the first effort toward coordinatedplanning in the two municipalities. Thegovernments commissioned a survey, whichfound that “people in both areas had prettymuch the same opinions about everything,”according to Graham – especially about farm-land preservation.

The municipalities then followed up the sur-vey with a master plan. Approved in 1985,the plan set an urban growth boundary out-side the city. Properties inside the boundarythat met city and township standards wouldbe approved for water service and annexedto the city – no questions asked.

Properties outside the boundary are eligibleto receive city services through a special,township-created water district. But the town-ship retained strict limits on building permitsoutside the boundary – issuing only nine suchpermits per year.

The rules are supported by ongoing coop-eration between the two governments. Thecity and township passed identical ordinancesto enforce the boundary, and their planningcommissions meet jointly to review any de-velopment proposals within the boundary.

Indications of SuccessThe result of the system has been to concen-trate new residential development close toFrankenmuth city. Since 1985, about 30 per-cent of the area inside the original growthboundary has been developed, while there hasbeen scant development outside it.35

“This agreement has stopped the helterskelter subdividing of the property and hav-ing isolated little subdivisions coming up,”said Frankenmuth Township Supervisor Mar-tin Warnick. “It gave us the option to controlour growth and maintain our rural-orientedcommunity.”36

In addition, the agreement has helped im-prove the quality of development taking placearound the city. Without the agreement, de-velopers looking to build in the townshipwould not have been eligible to receive citywater and sewer service. As a result, theywould have had to build on large lots to ac-commodate septic systems, thus spreadingdevelopment more widely across the town-ship.

In the years since the adoption of the agree-ment, Frankenmuth has taken a path of slowbut steady population growth. Between 1970and 1980, the combined population of the cityand township jumped 28 percent. But sincethen, the rate of growth slowed to 6 percentin the 1980s and 5 percent in the 1990s.37

DevelopmentPressure MountsWhile both city and township officials main-tain support for the agreement, tensions arebeginning to arise. Graham and Warnick saiddevelopers looking to build housing are hav-ing an increasingly difficult time securingland within the growth boundary.

“The farms around here have been in thesepeople’s families since the German settlersfirst came here in 1845,” Graham said. “Theyhave such an enormous emotional connectionto that land.”


With land within the boundary becomingincreasingly scarce, developers are beginningto make speculative investments in land out-side the growth limit, in the hope of convinc-ing township officials to loosen the growthmanagement rules.

“Some properties are going for twice thefarmland value,” Warnick said. “One sold for3 ½ times the farmland value. These arespeculations on these developers’ parts.”

Frankenmuth’s ability to defend its growthmanagement successes would undoubtedly beeasier if it were part of a regional framework.While one neighboring township has adopteda similar growth management ordinance, an-other has seen its efforts to guide growth

turned back due to public opposition. Twoother neighboring townships, which get theirwater from the city of Saginaw, have few lim-its on development.

There are some efforts being made in thedirection of regional cooperation. In 1999, theSaginaw County Chamber of Commercelaunched Saginaw County Vision 2020, a stra-tegic planning process aimed at developing acommon vision for the county’s future. Theinitiative – which has attempted to involvean array of partners from government, busi-ness and the community – has developed adraft “vision statement” and is now workingto develop strategies to put that vision intoaction.


Traverse City’s biggest assets have always been its natural resources: thesparkling waters of Grand Traverse

Bay, the dense forests and cherry orchards,the hilltops with their majestic views of thebay and the lands around.

In recent years, however, the region’sunique beauty has come to be threatened bysprawl.

The region’s five counties ranked fourth,seventh, eighth, 14th and 17th amongMichigan’s 83 counties for population growthbetween 1990 and 2000.38 Between 1970 and2000, the population of Traverse City itselfdeclined by nearly 20 percent, while the popu-lation of Grand Traverse County and the five-county Traverse City area doubled.39 Ifcurrent trends hold, the population of the re-gion could reach 190,000 by 2020, a 41 per-cent increase over the mid-1990s.40

Land values in the metro region have in-creased at a much faster pace than the stateoverall, thanks to the new development. As aresult, there is increasing pressure on farm-ers to sell off their orchards and farms fordevelopment. In just a five-year stretch in the

TRAVERSE CITY:A DIFFERENT KIND OF COORDINATION

[cre

dit]

Trav

erse

City

Con

vent

ion

and

Visi

tors

Bur

eau

mid-1990s, Grand Traverse County lost 11percent of its cropland.41

Polluted runoff from new developmentthreatens the quality of the water flowing intothe bay. Meanwhile, traffic congestion – soout of character for northwest Michigan – isnow rated the region’s number one problemby Grand Traverse County residents.42

Grand Traverse County officials estimatethat, if a “business as usual” attitude towarddevelopment prevails, 188 of the county’s 465square miles will have been developed, or bein the process of being developed, by 2020.43

Unlike the Grand Rapids region andFrankenmuth, “coordinated planning” – atleast in the sense of local governments meet-ing together to form comprehensive plans thatcomplement one another – has been all butabsent from the Traverse City region. A July2001 editorial in the Traverse City Record-Eagle summed up the situation: “There re-mains little or no coordination betweentownship, city and county officials on plan-ning issues, and yet new subdivisions andcommercial projects are going in every day.”44


Yet something unusual is happening inTraverse City that bears noting. Businesses,environmentalists and citizens have beenpressing individual local governments toembrace better practices for new develop-ments, protect waterways, and preserve farm-land. One of those efforts has resulted innearly two-thirds of the area’s municipalitiesadopting similar principles to govern futuregrowth.

Those efforts have led, in some parts of theregion, to a greater understanding of the needfor cooperative efforts to address specificland-use issues and a greater willingness toengage in those efforts.

Will such efforts lead to a coordinated ap-proach to planning in the Traverse City areaas broad as that undertaken in Grand Rapids,or as deeply rooted as that in Frankenmuth?It is too early to say. But they have laid thefoundation from which true coordinated plan-ning could proceed in the years to come.

Business PromotesCommon Principles

In Traverse City, the push for better land-use planning had an unusual catalyst: the busi-ness community.

Throughout Michigan and the nation, busi-ness leaders have typically opposed new ef-forts to curtail or lessen the effects of sprawl– arguing that any hindrance of market forces’ability to reshape the land would prove detri-mental to the economy.

But in the mid-1990s, some Traverse Citybusiness leaders began to take a differentview.

The region depends, in large part, on itsscenery and access to recreational opportu-nities to attract visitors, new residents andbusinesses. The propagation of sprawl, someworried, would “kill the goose that laid thegolden eggs,” in the words of one local busi-ness leader.45

Sour

ce: G

rand

Tra

vers

e C

ount

y

Grand Traverse County officials project that sprawl will increase dramatically in theregion by 2020 without significant efforts to manage growth.


In the early 1990s, county planners sur-veyed local residents to gauge local viewstoward development. Leaders of the localChaber of Commerce conducted a similarsurvey of its members, finding that theyshared roughly the same concerns as the com-munity as a whole: traffic congestion, loss offarmland and open space, water pollution, andthe lack of affordable housing.

The input generated by the county surveyspurred the development of the GrandTraverse Bay Regional Development Guide-book, a 128-page illustrated document thatlaid out planning and zoning practices thatmunicipalities could use to reduce sprawl ormitigate its negative effects.

The guidebook illustrated “common” and“better” approaches to issues ranging fromlighting and signage to the protection of natu-

ral resources and open space. It was also pack-aged with proposed ordinances communitiescould use to implement the changes.46

While the guidebook was greeted enthusi-astically, municipalities discovered that alter-ing their planning and zoning practices wasno easy matter.

“When it came time to translate the guide-lines into ordinances, everybody found outhow time consuming, how difficult that isespecially at the same time they were review-ing so many new development projects,” saidMarsha Smith, who was involved in theproject’s early stages and now directs RotaryCharities of Traverse City, in 1995.47 “Gradu-ally, the energy surrounding the Guidebookfaded away.”

Enter the Chamber of Commerce, whichcommitted significant resources beginning in

Profile: Traverse City

POPULATIONThe population of the Traverse City metropolitanregion has doubled over the last 30 years, whilethe population of Traverse City itself has declined.

LAND VALUE PER ACRELand values in the Traverse City region increasedfaster than the statewide average, indicating in-creased pressure to develop farmland.

CROPLANDGrand Traverse County lost 11 percent of its farm-land between 1992 and 1997, outpacing the state-wide average of 10 percent.

-20,00040,00060,00080,000

100,000120,000140,000160,000180,000200,000

1970 1980 1990 2000 2020(proj.)

Popu

latio

nTraverse City Grand Traverse Co. Metro area

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

1991 2000

Stat

e Eq

ualiz

ed V

alue

per

Acr

e

Grand Traverse Co. Metro areaState average

Grand Traverse Co. Metro Area1992 (acres) 46,467 144,4791997 (acres) 41,530 131,862% loss 11% 9%


1994 to distributing the guidebook and en-couraging municipalities to adopt its prin-ciples.

The chamber, through its New Designs forGrowth project, set as its goal getting all 93governmental units in the five-countyTraverse City region to adopt the guidebookprinciples.

But adoption of the principles was only partof the goal. New Designs sought to use theguidebook as a way to get municipalities andtheir citizens talking about their vision of thecommunity’s future.

To that end, the process by which commu-nities adopt the guidebook principles is as im-portant as the principles themselves. First,New Designs asks the local governing boardto pass a resolution asking for New Designsto come into the community. Then New De-signs seeks out “stakeholders” in the devel-opment process, including governmentofficials, citizens, and the developers them-selves, to participate in a community work-shop.

The workshops begin with a slide presen-tation showing examples of good and bad de-velopment. Then community members aredivided into teams, given a panel imprintedwith the geological features of one section ofthe community, and asked to plan its futuregrowth from the ground up.

“We give them bags of these 3-D housesand say, ‘you do a development on thatpanel,’” said New Designs director KeithCharters. “The only rule is there are norules.”48 The process gets local residents talk-ing about their priorities for future growth,and provides the basis for the rest of the pro-cess. New Designs then goes through whatCharters calls a “needs” process, comparingthe priorities residents express during theworkshop with the community’s existingmaster plan and ordinances.

The final step is implementation. New De-signs provides mini-grants to communities tohire professionals to make the necessary

changes to the master plan and to zoning or-dinances.

While the process takes place on a munici-pality-by-municipality basis, the New De-signs project has brought some level ofcoordination to planning in the region by get-ting different communities to go through thesame process. Charters said 68 of the region’s93 governmental units have had workshopsand that 65 have implemented or are in theprocess of implementing the guidebook rec-ommendations. “In hindsight, we became thecatalyst for regional similarity,” said Char-ters, who acknowledges that true coordinatedplanning between municipalities is made verydifficult by current Michigan laws.

The group is also beginning to bring mu-nicipalities together to forge joint land-useplans. In efforts similar to those undertakenby the Grand Valley Metropolitan Councilalong East Beltline Avenue, New Designs isinvolved in two corridor studies to map outfuture land uses in areas that are anticipatedto attract new development.

One of those studies, which is currently un-derway, involves Traverse City and fourneighboring townships. Charters said thestudy starts from the premise that certain natu-ral areas – such as wildlife areas and scenicviewsheds – identified in local master planswill be protected, then goes on to focus onwhat kind of development to allow where.

The other study, however – an analysis ofthe future build-out of an area scheduled tobe linked by a new bridge over the BoardmanRiver – became part of a larger conflict overthe bridge, which has been heatedly opposedby environmentalists and anti-sprawl advo-cates.

Indeed, tensions over exactly what consti-tutes sprawl in a small, but rapidly growingregion like Traverse City pop up in manycontexts. For example, a committee of NewDesigns influenced the plans for a mixed-usedevelopment in suburban East Bay Township– a process that led the developer to include


sidewalks, minimize parking lot coverage,and give the project a more “village-like” feel.

“(I)t’s great that developers are thinkingalong those lines,” said Patty Cantrell of theMichigan Land Use Institute about the projectin 1999. “But the other side is, it’s a new de-velopment on undeveloped land rather thanreuse of urban land.”49

Yet not all new development is taking placein the distant suburbs. Traverse City is itselfseeing a boom in new building projects,among them, a $100 million retail, office andresidential complex on the site of the formerTraverse City Iron Works that has won re-gional and national acclaim for its adherenceto “Smart Growth” principles.50

With the Traverse City area’s populationprojected to continue to balloon, tensions overtransportation and the development of sub-urban areas around the city are likely to con-tinue. But New Designs’ promotion ofcommon principles for controlled growth –combined with its recent multi-jurisdictionalwork – has led to greater awareness of theproblems posed by sprawl, and a developingcommunity consensus behind possible solu-tions. “The growth pressures just keep oncoming,” said Marsha Smith of Rotary Chari-ties. “There’s more of a community con-sciousness about these issues than there maybe in other areas. That awareness bodes wellfor encouraging other growth managementtechniques.”51

Protecting Farmlandand Water QualityWhile New Designs is just now beginning toventure into the world of coordinated plan-ning, other multi-jurisdictional efforts havesprung up around two issues near and dear tothe hearts of Traverse City area residents:farmland preservation and protection of wa-ter resources.

The region is already home to one pioneer-ing farmland preservation effort. In 1994,

Peninsula Township enacted the Midwest’sfirst taxpayer-supported purchase of devel-opment rights program. Under the program,participating farmers agree to give up the rightto develop their land, and are paid the differ-ence between their farmland’s value and thevalue it would hold if sold for development.In the program’s first five years, more than1,500 acres of farmland were protected fromdevelopment.52

Now, five other local townships are look-ing to put together their own farmland pres-ervation plan.

“What we’ve realized of course is that theregular development patterns that have beenestablished in this area are not generally inour best interests in terms of protection ofresources and trying to utilize most effectivelyour existing infrastructure,” said Acme Town-ship Planner Sherrin Hood, who is partici-pating in the effort.53

The townships involved have not yet comeup with a specific program for the preserva-tion effort. But there has been little frictionbetween the municipalities, mainly becauseof their shared heritage and their commoninterest in farmland preservation.

Coordination between municipalities is alsobeginning to happen in the crucial area ofwatershed protection.

Northwest Michigan bills itself as the “Cherry Capital of theWorld.” But the area’s cherry orchards have increasingly fallenvictim to development pressures and agricultural economics.

Phot

o: T

rave

rse

City

Con

vent

ion

and

Visi

tors

Bur

eau


The Watershed Center Grand Traverse Bay,a non-profit organization, was formed in 1990to coordinate a myriad of existing public andprivate efforts to protect the waters of GrandTraverse Bay. From the start, said ExecutiveDirector Christopher Wright, the organizationsought to bring municipal governments in as“partners” in its research, public education,and public policy initiatives.

But the pace of collaboration among gov-ernmental leaders has recently picked up. Thisyear, the center began hosting a series ofworkshops with local government leaders toshare information on how various govern-ments are addressing water pollution issues.“It’s sort of strength in numbers,” Wrightsaid.54 “We want to make sure they’re awareof what practices others are doing.”

Wright cited examples of where such com-munication among governmental entitiescould make a difference. In the mid-1990s,for instance, the Grand Traverse County DrainCommissioner drafted a new ordinance onstormwater runoff and soil erosion that hassince been adopted by a second county and isbeing considered by a third.

The center also recently received an EPAgrant to develop a comprehensive watershedprotection plan for the entire 973-square-mileGrand Traverse Bay watershed.55 The initia-tive will involve planners from the local andcounty level and will include at least 50 meet-ings with stakeholders throughout the five-county region.

Another goal of the project is to producean educational CD-ROM to distribute to lo-cal planning officials with information andtools for effective watershed protection.

Is TrueCoordination Next?Traverse City has not experienced the degreeor depth of inter-governmental coordinationof planning that has occurred in Grand Rap-ids or Frankenmuth. Instead, initiatives toimprove planning and restrain sprawl havetypically come either from individual munici-palities or from outside government alto-gether.

Such an approach requires an extraordinaryamount of individual leadership and a con-stant investment of time and resources. Whilesome cooperative efforts are beginning tospring up within certain sets of municipali-ties and on particular issues, Traverse City isthe only community profiled in this report inwhich there is not a regular forum in whichcommunity leaders meet to discuss issues ofregional importance.

Much progress has been made in develop-ing a common understanding of the dangersposed by sprawl since the launching of NewDesigns in the mid-1990s. The next step forthe region is to convert that common under-standing into common action and legallybinding plans to defend the area’s treasurednatural resources and way of life.


The three communities profiled in thisreport are not unique in Michigan fortheir willingness to work together with

their neighbors on solutions to regional prob-lems related to sprawl. Increasingly across thestate, citizens, business leaders, and govern-ment officials are pressing for better coordi-nation between municipalities on land-useand other decisions.

But while these three communities are notunique, they are exceptional. For years, the“built-in” conflicts between cities and town-ships – combined with archaic and ineffec-tual state planning laws – have frustratedefforts to develop a more regional approachto sprawl.

Why have these three communities begunto succeed where so many others have failed?And what roadblocks stand in their way?

The answers to these questions could guideother communities as they seek to replicatethe successes of Grand Rapids, Frankenmuthand Traverse City. And they can provide aroadmap for state policy-makers as they lookfor effective ways to encourage inter-munici-pal cooperation.

Four Foundationsof SuccessThe examples of Grand Rapids, Traverse Cityand Frankenmuth show that communities thatdo successful coordinated planning have sev-eral common characteristics.They seek out citizen input early and of-ten. All three case studies began with a “vi-sioning” process or community survey thatdocumented the major concerns of the com-munity and used those concerns as the basisfor developing a master plan or other guideto development.

Those studies found a surprising degree ofunanimity among citizens on some issues,such as farmland preservation or waterwayprotection. That community consensus, inturn, provided public officials with legitimacy

in their efforts to forward creative solutionsto those problems.They are committed to process. In all threeof the case studies, substantive work on plan-ning did not begin until a mutually agreed-upon process was developed to ensurefairness and guarantee all parties a voice.

Maintaining that commitment to process isnot always easy. In the case of the New De-signs for Growth project in Traverse City, ithas meant countless hours traveling to com-munities, setting up community workshops,and painstakingly working through all poten-tial issues. A similar, arduous process alsotakes place at the Grand Valley MetropolitanCouncil, where most major decisions arebased on consensus among all the affectedmunicipalities.

But such hard work ultimately pays off byenhancing the legitimacy of the regional plan-ning organization and ensuring that those whoparticipate are fully “bought-in” to the results.They respect individual communities’ per-spectives and their right to home rule.

In Michigan, the participation of munici-palities in joint planning efforts is strictly vol-untary. To the extent coordinated planning hassucceeded in Michigan, it has been based onthe support and investment in the process ofeach individual community involved.

In some cases, such as the Grand Rapidsarea sewer and water agreements, communi-ties are bound in a set of coordinated plan-ning arrangements by contract. In other cases,such as the GVMC, communities are rela-tively free to join up or drop out at will.

As noted above, maintaining the supportand participation of various communities incoordinated planning is a massive undertak-ing that depends on mutual agreement on theground rules. But if the process appears fairand positive results are achieved, communi-ties will be enticed to jump on the bandwagon.When it’s done right, communities find thatthey have more power to determine their own

MAKING IT WORK


future if they plan jointly with their neigh-bors.

GVMC is a fine case in point, its member-ship having tripled in the decade since it wasfounded.

“We just recently became a member a yearand a half ago,” said Cannon Township’sBonnie Shupe of the Grand Valley Metropoli-tan Council. “There are some communitiesthat aren’t members and they’re still includedin these things that are going on.”

The best planning efforts also respect whatis special in each community.

“One of the things we preach when we goto, say, Whitewater Township, is that there’sno place else in the United States or on thisEarth like Whitewater Township,” said KeithCharters of New Designs for Growth. “Youtell us what your priorities are.”They are built to last. As the case studiesshow, it can take years – even decades – forcoordinated planning efforts to be translatedinto concrete improvements in developmentpatterns, environmental quality, and overallquality of life.

Each of the communities studied here hasan institution or agreement – whether it be agovernment body like the GVMC, sturdynon-profits like the Traverse City Area Cham-ber of Commerce or the Watershed CenterGrand Traverse Bay, or a pact like the agree-ment between Frankenmuth city and town-ship – that is on solid enough footing to standthe test of time.

Ultimately, it is the formation of such in-stitutions and agreements on the regional andsub-regional levels that should be the goal ofpolicy makers in Michigan.

Four ObstaclesWhile the three communities profiled herehave largely succeeded in getting coordinatedgrowth management plans off the ground,they – along with many other Michigan com-munities – face substantial obstacles in theirefforts to plan for future growth.

Outmoded state planning and zoning laws.As noted in the introduction, Michigan’s plan-ning laws do not require even the minimumamount of coordination between jurisdictionson planning or zoning issues.

While the regions profiled here have largelysurmounted this obstacle through a combi-nation of committed leadership and years ofhard work, the lack of coordination in statelaw has had some effect.

In Frankenmuth, for instance, the city andtownship planning commissions meet jointlyto discuss development proposals within theurban growth boundary. However, the twocommunities cannot legally form a joint plan-ning commission because such a body is notrecognized by state law.

The failure to notify neighboring commu-nities of impending planning and develop-ment decisions, the lack of agreed-uponprocesses to handle disputes over utility ser-vices and land transfers, and the absence ofsub-regional organizations devoted to protect-ing municipalities’ common interests areamong the biggest obstacles to inter-jurisdic-tional cooperation in efforts to rein in sprawl.Current state laws do not do nearly enoughto encourage such communication and coop-eration.Outside economic and legal pressure. Theemergence of business-led groups like NewDesigns for Growth in Traverse City is anencouraging sign. But even in regions wherelocal business interests might agree on mea-sures to manage growth, the influence of in-dividual developers – either from inside oroutside the community – can put enormouspressure on local governments to approvesprawling developments.

As noted above, developers have alreadybegun buying up land outside theFrankenmuth Township growth boundary inhopes of persuading the township to loosenits development rules. Mark Nixon of theCoalition for Sensible Growth in TraverseCity claims the investments made by devel-


opers in land on either side of the proposedBoardman River bridge were a major forcein pushing the bridge project forward.

More ominously, municipalities throughoutMichigan must constantly be prepared to de-fend their zoning and planning decisions fromlawsuits brought by developers. Especially insmall communities, the threat of litigation cancause municipal leaders to shy away fromgrowth management policies that could pro-voke a legal response.

Coordinated planning is meaningless un-less the plans are enforced. State law shouldoffer protection to municipalities or groupsof municipalities that go through a proper,thoughtful process of master plan and zoningordinance development. Meanwhile, commu-nities must ensure that significant politicalsupport exists for any master plan to defendit from attack by outside economic forces.Conflicts between levels of government. Ifcommunities invest their time, money andeffort in developing plans that reflect theirvalues, state and county officials should atleast be required to respect those plans.

Sadly, that is not often the case. In 1999,for example, the Grand Traverse Countytownship of Acme adopted a master plan fo-cusing on preservation of natural resourcesand farmland, the creation of a vital towncenter, and cluster residential development.Shortly after the plan was completed, the stateDepartment of Transportation and GrandTraverse County Road Commission an-nounced that they were considering widen-ing M-72, the main east-west road throughthe township, a move that could bring moretraffic and development to the corridor.56

Inter-governmental conflicts also limit theusefulness of existing tools that could be usedto foster coordination. Counties and regionalbodies already have the ability to plan underMichigan law. However, many municipali-ties have been loath to cooperate with countyplanning initiatives and many counties havefailed to show leadership in soliciting munici-pal involvement.

With Michigan’s treasured tradition ofhome rule, there is much resistance to “top-down” planning approaches such as a statemaster plan. But the “bottom-up” alternativeis equally untenable unless plans are coordi-nated among the various levels of local,county, regional and state government. Statepolicy should encourage communication totake place among planning officials at all lev-els of government, and ensure that the plansadopted by governments are consistent withone another.Historical lack of community consensus. Asthe case studies show, it is much easier formunicipalities to effectively work together onissues where they share a common interest.Cooperation has proven more difficult on is-sues where there is little consensus – such astransportation, sewer and water extensionsand revenue sharing.

The only solution to this weakness in coor-dinated planning is more coordinated plan-ning. Organizations like the Grand ValleyMetropolitan Council have parlayed theirsuccess in relatively easy-to-address areassuch as inter-municipal land-use planning andthe development of a regional geographicalinformation system into modest successes ontouchy issues such as land transfers. Metrocouncil officials are now trying to expandtheir efforts to cover even more difficult is-sues such as transportation.

Achieving public consensus on how to ad-dress Michigan’s sprawl problem is an essen-tial prerequisite to effective action.Governmental bodies on all levels need tobegin engaging their citizens in a conversa-tion about how to achieve the best possiblefuture for their communities, their regions,and, ultimately, all of Michigan.

Works in ProgressAs the three case studies make abundantlyclear, coordinated planning – such as it hasexisted to date in Grand Rapids, Frankenmuthand Traverse City – is not without its flaws.


The limited resources of these projects –and the even more limited legal support pro-vided by state planning law – have con-strained the ability of current coordinatedplanning efforts to address the toughest is-sues, build the broadest possible support, andcreate the most comprehensive and effectiveframeworks for regional cooperation.

It also must be understood that the propertime frame for evaluating the success of co-ordinated planning efforts is not months oryears, but decades. Today’s rampant sprawlis the result of public policies that originatedin the early 20th Century. In contrast, manyof the initiatives profiled here have been inexistence for only a few years, with the old-est being the 17-year-old Frankenmuth agree-ment.

As a result, the organizations and initiativesprofiled here can be properly viewed as pio-neers in the earliest stages of their explora-tion of new ways to deal with the pressingenvironmental, economic and quality-of-lifethreats posed by sprawl.

When viewed through that lens, theachievements detailed in this report are trulyimpressive. State policy-makers should notonly focus on encouraging more communi-ties to follow those profiled in this report, butalso on giving communities like Grand Rap-ids, Frankenmuth and Traverse City evenmore tools to plan for a brighter future.


There is much the state of Michigan cando to encourage communities to engage in coordinated planning efforts

like the ones highlighted in this report.Michigan’s four planning enabling acts

were passed at different times and under vary-ing circumstances. They do not require mu-nicipalities to work with their neighbors orrequire coordination of plans made by vary-ing levels of government.

Those laws should be replaced by a singlelaw with clear expectations that communitiescooperate with one another in their planning.

Such a law should build on the positive ex-periences of communities like those profiledin this report, while removing the obstaclesto their success. Specifically, it should:Give citizens the tools they need to controltheir destiny.• Guarantee that communities are notified

of zoning or master plan decisions inneighboring communities that could affecttheir future.

• Give communities the right to commenton neighboring communities’ planningproposals and to have those comments in-cluded in the public record. Legislation tothis effect was enacted by the Legislaturein 2001 and should be enthusiastically ac-cepted by municipalities and enforced bythe state.

• Ensure that the planning process includesample opportunities for public participa-tion.

Create effective processes to encourage co-ordination.• Encourage greater coordination of plans

made by various bodies within a munici-pality – e.g. planning commissions, his-toric district commissions, sewer and waterboards, etc.

• Require greater coordination of plans madeby all levels of government. County plansshould be consistent with local plans, re-

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONSgional plans with county plans, and statepolicies with regional plans.

• Explicitly authorize communities to formjoint or sub-regional planning commis-sions, and encourage participation incounty and regional planning efforts. Mu-nicipalities that share economic, environ-mental, or cultural characteristics shouldhave the flexibility to plan together as agroup.

Enhance home rule.• Protect communities from legal liability

when they go through a proper process ofmaster planning and zoning ordinanceadoption and enforcement. Currently, thelack of coordination between master plansand zoning ordinances opens municipali-ties to potential lawsuits. That fear of liti-gation, in turn, frightens somecommunities away from taking actionsagainst sprawl that enjoy broad popularsupport.

• Requiring zoning ordinances and other lo-cal policies to be consistent with the mas-ter plan, and clarifying the role and powersof local planning commissions to makeland-use decisions, would go a long waytoward easing the legal fears of local gov-ernments.

• Give local governments the flexibility toadopt the type of plans and participate inthe coordinated planning endeavors thatbest meet their needs. The state can en-courage participation in coordinated plan-ning by giving priority for state capitalfunds to communities that work in concertwith their neighbors.

• Provide a source of funding that would en-able even small communities to prepareand implement effective plans.

Take the long view.• Require plans to have a 20-year focus and

be updated regularly to keep up withchanging conditions.


• Encourage municipal planners to adoptsix-year capital improvement plans to en-sure that local spending priorities movecommunities toward realization of theirmaster plans.

Such an approach would enhance the abil-ity of municipalities to plan for their futurewhile respecting Michigan’s tradition of homerule. It would allow other regions in Michi-gan to build on the kind of successes achievedby the regions highlighted in this study – suc-cesses that hold out the promise of preserv-ing natural treasures, community values andMichiganders’ quality of life.


NOTES1 Sarah Hollander, “SEMCOG to Study Plan for CarDistribution Center,” Ann Arbor News, 8 September1999.2 Personal communication, 17 October 2001. Note:Unless otherwise attributed, subsequent quotes from thesame individual are derived from the first conversationcited.3 Dean Cousino, “London Residents Object to Rail,Truck Center Next Door,” Monroe Evening News,March 1999, obtained from Milan Area ConcernedCitizens.4 Personal communication, 18 October 2001.5 Tischler refused to name the specific municipalitiesmentioned in the episodes described in this section inorder to avoid stirring up any ill will.6 Kim Hill, Huron Land Use Alliance, “ManagedGrowth, Examples from Other Communities,” down-loaded from http://www.hvcn.org/info/hlua/otherexamples.html, 12 October 2001.7 Michigan in Brief, “Land Use,” 1 April 1998, down-loaded from http://www.michiganinbrief.org/text/is-sues/issue-42.htm, 26 December 2001.8 David Czurak, “Urban Sprawl: Winners, Losers,”Grand Rapids Business Journal, 11 August 1997.9 Keith Schneider, “Acting as a Region to Tame Sprawl,”Great Lakes Bulletin, Spring 1999, 10.10 David Czurak, “MSU Study Scrutinizes UrbanSprawl,” Grand Rapids Business Journal, 8 February1999, 1.11 Keith Schneider, “Acting as a Region to TameSprawl,” Great Lakes Bulletin, Spring 1999, 10.12 Haya El Nasser and Paul Overberg, “What You Don’tKnow About Sprawl,” USA Today, 22 February 2001,1A.13 Sources for this and subsequent profiles: populationdata, U.S. Census Bureau, Office of State Demogra-pher, Michigan Department of Management and Bud-get; land values, Michigan State University Departmentof Agricultural Economics, downloaded from http://w w w. a e c . m s u . e d u / a g e c o n / g o v e r n m e n t /sevtaxcounty.htm, 10 December 2001; cropland figures,U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997 Census of Agri-culture.14 Keith Schneider, “Acting as a Region to TameSprawl,” Great Lakes Bulletin, Spring 1999, 7.15 Personal communication, 8 November 2001.16 Grand Valley Metropolitan Council, “MetropolitanDevelopment Blueprint Summary,” downloaded from

http://www.gvmc.org/bp_summary.htm, 14 November2001.17 United Growth for Kent County, “Water/Sewer Fu-tures Project – Grand Rapids, MI,” The Urban-RuralConnection, September/October 1999.18 Personal communication, 1 November 2001.19 United Growth for Kent County, “Water/Sewer Fu-tures Project – Grand Rapids, MI,” The Urban-RuralConnection, September/October 1999.20 Eric DeLong and James Hatch, “New Water andSewer Partnership Creates a Platform for Key RegionalIssues,” Getting Smart!, the newsletter of the SmartGrowth Network, February 2000, 5.21 David Czurak, “Council Keys Cooperation,” GrandRapids Business Journal, 18 January 1999.22 Grand Valley Metro Council, “Land Transfer Stan-dards: Recommended Procedures for Municipal Units,”January 1999.23 Robert B. Annis Water Resources Institute, GrandValley State College, “Bear Creek Watershed Project:Demographics of the Watershed,” downloaded fromhttp://www4.gvsu.edu/wri/bearpage/stewplan/demograp.html, 19 October 2001.24 Patricia S. Van Dyke and Holly C. Van Scoy, RobertB. Annis Water Resources Institute, Grand Valley StateCollege, “Protection, Preservation and Restoration inan Urban Watershed,” downloaded from http://www4.gvsu.edu/wri/bearpage/stewplan/index.html, 30October 2001.25 Personal communication, 25 October 2001.26 Grand Rapids Business Journal, “Metro CouncilPlugs in Communities With REGIS,” 6 March 2000.27 David Czurak, “Urban Sprawl: Winners, Losers,”Grand Rapids Business Journal, 11 August 1997.28 Kelly Thayer and Keith Schneider, “In a Major Dis-connect, Highways Still Dominate Grand RapidsAgenda,” Great Lakes Bulletin, Spring 1999, page 13.29 David Czurak, “Transportation Proposal Has 20/20Vision,” Grand Rapids Business Journal, 16 Novem-ber 1998.30 Grand Rapids Business Journal, “New Issues Pro-jected from Census,” 9 April 2001.31 David Czurak, “Metro Council Plugs In Communi-ties with REGIS,” Grand Rapids Business Journal, 6March 2000.32 Haya El Nasser and Paul Overberg, “What You Don’tKnow About Sprawl,” USA Today, 22 February 2001,1A.


33 Frankenmuth Township’s decline in population from1990 to 2000 can be attributed to annexation of newlydeveloped land by Frankenmuth City.34 Personal communication, 17 October 2001.35 Charles Graham, personal communication, 17 Octo-ber 2001.36 Personal communication, 24 October 2001.37 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census,“1990 Census of Housing and Population, Populationand Housing Unit Counts, Michigan,”; Michigan StateBudget Office, “Population for Counties in Michigan,”downloaded from http://www.state.mi.us/census2000/place.pdf, 31 October 2001.38 Michigan State Budget Office, “Michigan Census2000,” downloaded from http://www.state.mi.us/cen-sus2000, 10 December 2001.39 From “1990 Census of Housing and Population, Popu-lation and Housing Unit Counts, Michigan,” U.S. De-partment of Commerce, Bureau of Census; “Popula-tion for Counties in Michigan,” Michigan State Bud-get Office, downloaded from http://www.state.mi.us/census2000/place.pdf, 31 October 2001.40 Keith Schneider, Michigan Land Use Institute, “InMichigan, Business Leads in Regional Plan,” 16 June1996, downloaded from http://www.mlui.org/projects/growthmanagement/newdesigns.otgnedes.html.41 U.S. Department of Agriculture, “1997 Census ofAgriculture Highlights,” downloaded from http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/highlights/mi/mi.htm, 31 October 2001.42 “Survey of Local Priorities Shows Lack of Leader-ship,” Traverse City Record-Eagle, 29 July 2001.43 Grand Traverse County, “Focus 2020: Growth Man-agement vs. Business as Usual,” downloaded fromhttp://www.grandtraverse.org/masterp/gmvbu.htm, 25October 2001.44 “Survey of Local Priorities Shows Lack of Leader-ship,” Traverse City Record-Eagle, 29 July 2001.45 Quote from Dan Wolf, chairman of the Traverse CityChamber of Commerce governmental affairs commit-

tee. From John Flesher, “Business Must Be Involvedin Anti-Sprawl Efforts, Leaders Say,” Associated Press,9 September 1999.46 Personal communication, 22 October 2001.47 Keith Schneider, Michigan Land Use Institute, “NovelPublic-Private Partnership to Promote Jobs and Pro-tect the Environment,” downloaded from http://www.mlui .org/projects /growthmanagement /newdesigns/wyckoff.html, 26 October 2001.48 Personal communication, 22 October 2001.49 Bill Echlin, “Developers Plan Walkable Community,”Traverse City Record-Eagle, 8 November 1999.50 Thomas Bevier, “Traverse City: Surge In DowntownConstruction Has Many Fearing They’ll End Up TooUrban,” Detroit Free Press, 5 June 1999.51 Personal communication, 24 October 2001.52 Cari Noga, “Saving the Orchards,” Traverse CityRecord-Eagle, 25 July 1999.53 Personal communication, 24 October 2001.54 Personal communication, 1 November 2001.55 Christopher Wright, “Major Watershed ProtectionPlanning Grant Awarded,” The Watershed Center GrandTraverse Bay Member/Partner Newsletter, Summer2001.56 Keith Schneider, Michigan Land Use Institute,“Breaking the Sprawl Addiction: A Twelve Step Pro-gram,” Great Lakes Bulletin, March 2000.

Documents

COORDINATED PLANNING IN MICHIGAN - …research.policyarchive.org/5493.pdfFor Schils and her neighbors, the story of the distribution center had a happy ending. But one element of the