You asked for a summary of the Community Character Act of 2001 (S 973/H. R. 1433), its status, and its implications for Connecticut if adopted. Your questions were prompted by a letter that asserts that the bills would provide funding for states to develop and adopt model land use statutes incorporating a guidebook developed by the American Planning Association (APA). The letter argues that the bills would result in the federalization of land use planning.

SUMMARY

The House and Senate bills are mostly similar, providing federal grants to states to update their planning laws and documents. The House bill would provide grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to states to develop or revise their land use planning laws and comprehensive land use plans. The Senate bill would provide grants from the Department of Commerce to states and Indian tribes to promote comprehensive land use planning at the state and local level. Both bills establish eligibility criteria. Neither refers to the APA guidebook or requires that state legislation be consistent with it.

Both bills specify the eligible uses of the grant funds. The House bill authorizes $ 50,000,000 for grants in each of the federal fiscal years from 2002 through 2006. The Senate bill authorizes $ 25,000,000 per year during this period. Under both bills, the maximum grant to a state is $ 1 million, and the federal share of the project funded by the grant cannot exceed 90%. Both bills have audit provisions. The Senate bill also authorizes the commerce secretary to spend up to $ 1 million in fiscal years 2002 through 2006 for voluntary educational and informational programs for state and local land use officials.

The Senate bill has proceeded further in the legislative process than the House bill. The Senate referred its bill to Environment and Public Works Committee, which held hearings on it in March 2002, and favorably reported a substitute bill in April 2002. In April 2001, the House referred its bill to the Resources and Financial Services committees in April 2001. The Financial Services Committee referred it to its Housing and Community Opportunities Subcommittee. None of these committees have taken action on the bill to date.

If the legislation passed, it would provide Connecticut with funds to revise its land use planning law and planning documents. But the rules do not limit or usurp the traditional authority of state and local government to regulate land uses. In fact, both bills declare, "land use planning is rightfully within the jurisdiction of state and local governments. "

COMMUNITY CHARACTER ACT OF 2001

Findings

Both bills attribute rising infrastructure costs, environmental degradation, and loss of community character to inadequate land use planning but explicitly state that this function rightly belongs to state and local government and that the federal and state governments should support comprehensive land use planning. Both find that states should provide a proper climate through legislation in order for comprehensive land use planning and community development to occur and note that many states are updating their legislation in this area.

There are some differences in the findings. For example, the Senate bill refers to tribal governments as well as states, while the House bill finds that land use planning should provide a range of housing options in location, type, and affordability for all members of the community.

Grant Eligibility and Ranking Provisions

Both bills offer grants to encourage states to update their land use laws and practices. Under the House bill, to be eligible for a grant, a state must show that the goals of its land use planning legislation are consistent with the bill's guidelines. Among other things, the guidelines state that:

1. citizens should be notified of and represented in the planning process;

2. land use plans should be based intergovernmental cooperation when practicable, particularly in watersheds;

3. land use plans should contain elements setting timetables for action and allocating responsibility among state and local governments and citizens;

4. comprehensive planning should promote a variety of goals, including sustainable economic development, the enhancement of community character, and the conservation of natural and historic resources.

The Senate bill has similar eligibility criteria.

Under both bills, the first priority is providing funds to states to develop or revise outmoded or inadequate land use planning legislation. Both bills also give priority to the development or revision of plans for multi-state regions.

The Senate bill has several additional ranking criteria, including (1) the population growth rate in the state, (2) the extent to which the funded project will promote economic development and protect the environment, and (3) the state's funding of comprehensive land use planning. The Department of Commerce must provide grants to the states and tribes that rank the highest on these criteria.

Eligible Uses of the Grants

.

Under the House bill, states must use the grants to obtain technical assistance in:

1. drafting land use planning legislation;

2. engaging in research and development for planning programs and the development of state guide plans;

3. conducting workshops, educating policy makers, and involving citizens in the planning process; and

4. integrating state and regional concerns and land use plans with federal land use plans.

The Senate bill allows states to use the grants to carry out these tasks directly, as an alternative to obtaining technical assistance in these areas. It also allows the grants to be used to (1) provide funds to local governments to carry out land use planning activities consistent with the state legislation or (2) acquire equipment or information technology to facilitate state and local planning. Finally, it allows states to apply for an additional grant of up to $ 100,000 for local government planning pilot projects.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CONNECTICUT

If passed, the legislation would provide Connecticut with funds to revise its land use planning law and documents, including the five-year Plan of Conservation and Development. The amount of funding the state would receive would depend on Congress' annual appropriation for the program. The amount would also be affected by the extent to which the state met the bill's eligibility and ranking criteria. If the Senate bill passed, Connecticut's funding could be less than other state's since the bill targets the fastest growing states and Connecticut is one of the slowest growing states in the country.

It does not appear that passage of the legislation would federalize land use planning in the state. The legislation does not give federal agencies a larger role in making specific land use decisions. Many of the guidelines contained in the legislation are already addressed in existing state law, the Plan of Conservation and Development, and other documents. However, the legislation does promote several things that are not addressed in current law, such as intergovernmental cooperation in land use planning within watersheds. It also encourages the participation of the public in the development, adoption, and updating of land use plans, while current state law only requires planning officials to hold public hearings before making certain decisions and notify the public of these hearings.

Under the House bill, states must use the grants to obtain technical assistance to integrate state and federal land use, while the Senate bill allows them to be used for this purpose. However, this provision appears to have little relevance to Connecticut, where the federal government owns very little land and does not engage in substantial land use planning. This provision may be more relevant in western states, where the federal government is a major landowner and routinely engages in land use planning.

If the Senate bill passes, its provisions regarding Indian tribes could affect Connecticut. Federally recognized tribes, which are not subject to local zoning or other land use laws, would be eligible for funding under that bill. The tribes could use the grants to enhance their land use planning capacity, which might help them address the effects of casinos and related developments.

KM: ro