Renewing Growth Management

Renewing Growth Management
in Maine

by Sue Inches and Jay W. Vogt

Published in Practicing Planner, the American Institute of Certified Planners journal, Volume 4, Number 4, December 2006

Planners can benefit from learning new participation technologies. This case study describes how public participation technologies were used to help reform a state growth management program. Planners involved in state growth management programs can learn from several lessons provided in this case about reforming state growth management programs.

In 2005, the Maine legislature asked the State Planning Office to review the state's Growth Management Act and make recommendations for change. The SPO initiated a nine-month public engagement process that included a public forum using a meeting method known as Open Space Technology, focus groups, in-depth interviews, other meetings, public comments, and advisory group input. This article reviews those processes, and details two: the Land Use Planning Summit and the focus groups. It also presents key findings, recommendations, and lessons learned.

The process engaged people in a discussion of the need to balance private property rights with the desire to protect Maine 's open spaces. The planning process was successful in soliciting widespread public input, achieving broad consensus, and ultimately gaining final legislative approval.

BACKGROUND

The architects of Maine 's Growth Management Act (GMA) envisioned that mandatory local comprehensive plans would effectively direct growth into "designated growth areas" and thereby solve much of the sprawl problem. The original GMA made local comprehensive plans mandatory and required the state to review them for consistency with 10 broad state goals. When the GMA was passed, the legislature funded staff to implement it at the state level and grant funds to towns to support planning at the local level. The act became law in 1988.

In 1992, an amendment to the GMA made local planning voluntary, although the law still required that zoning be consistent with a local plan. At the same time, funding for implementing the act had begun to fall. State staffing had fallen from a high of 22 full-time personnel in 1989 to six in 2005. The 10 state goals and all of the required elements for local comprehensive plans and state review of plans have remained in place, virtually unchanged, since 1988.

This case begins in 2005, when the Maine Legislature was debating LD 286, "An Act to Eliminate the State Planning Office." This quickly became the bill that wouldn't go away. Public hearings and work sessions were held, first by one committee, then another. The bill later was amended with a directive to gut the 17-year-old GMA by removing state review of local comprehensive plans.

What was behind the debate? Local planning committees had complained to legislators for years about comprehensive plans. After two or three years of dedicated volunteer work, planning committees sometimes received lengthy letters from the State Planning Office (SPO) explaining why their plan was found inconsistent with the GMA. Or in other cases, the state did find a plan consistent with the GMA, but voters in the town refused to accept the plan.

The legislative issue was solved, at least temporarily, when the State Planning Office requested a legislative resolve to study the GMA and return to the legislature a year later with recommendations for change. The SPO had its own concerns with the GMA. Funding and staffing had declined steadily since the GMA was enacted, but the SPO still was required by law to conduct full, in-depth reviews of local plans. (Town submission of plans to the state is mandatory if they accept state funds for planning; otherwise, submission is voluntary.)

Figure 1
Staffing for plan reviews at the state level has declined over the years.

Further, SPO staff realized that a certain amount of tension and dissatisfaction often creates the right conditions to bring about change . The negative feedback from the legislature was hard for staff to hear, but at the same time it created an opportunity to improve planning at both the state and local levels.

The challenge was to maintain the right amount of tension — enough to keep the planning community and local leadership engaged, but not so much that tensions boiled over and allowed opponents to abolish planning altogether. This case focuses on the process of developing recommendations for change.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Engaging the Public

As soon as the legislative session ended, SPO's Land Use Team got to work. They designed a nine-month process to enable them to listen and learn. The process featured six ways of engaging the public in conversation about growth in Maine , summarized below.

1. Two-Day Land Use Planning Summit: SPO contracted with Jay Vogt (co-author of this case) of Peoplesworth to facilitate a two-day Maine Land Use Planning Summit at the University of Maine in August 2005. The event was open to the public with invitations sent to planners, local governments, developers, environmentalists, legislators, and educators. The summit was organized using a meeting method known as Open Space Technology, a process that enables attendees to establish their own agenda at the event. About 125 people participated, with representation from all the invited sectors. The full summit proceedings are available at www.maine.gov/spo/landuse.

Figure 2
Land Use Planning Summit

2. Focus Groups: SPO contracted with a market research firm, Market Decisions Inc., to convene five focus groups. The focus group effort sought an in-depth understanding of topics related to growth and planning in Maine . Each of five sectors — developers, environmental advocates, service center municipalities, fast-growing towns, and rural or non-growing towns — met for two hours and considered a similar list of discussion questions. A complete report is available at www.maine.gov/spo/landuse.

3. In-Depth Interviews: In addition to the focus groups, Market Decisions conducted 20 in-depth interviews with professional planners representing all regions of the state. Interviewees responded to a detailed list of questions about how planning is conducted now and possible planning options for the future. The full report is available at www.maine.gov/spo/landuse.

4. Other Meetings: SPO also met with a number of agencies, individuals, and groups to better understand their concerns and ideas about planning in Maine . These included the Intergovernmental Advisory Commission; Maine Municipal Association; 11 regional planning agencies; and state departments of Conservation, Transportation, and Economic Development.

5. Comments: SPO also encouraged and accepted written comments from the public throughout the study. Two months prior to the legislative deadline, SPO circulated draft "Key Findings and Recommendations" and asked for feedback. A number of people submitted written comments. The full text of comments can be viewed at www.maine.gov/spo/landuse.

6. Advisory Group: The Community Preservation Advisory Committee (CPAC), a subcommittee of the legislature, served as SPO's advisers on the evaluation. The State Planning Office met with this group three times during the process to seek guidance and to brainstorm issues. A list of CPAC members can be found at www.maine.gov/spo/landuse/tfandcomm.

Two of these six methodologies — the Maine Land Use Planning Summit using Open Space Technology and the use of professionally facilitated focus groups — are unusual planning tools. For these reasons we describe them in more detail below.

Land Use Planning Summit

At the start of this process, SPO needed a means of engaging the public that:

Would be inclusive and involve as many interested folks as cared to participate.
Would be open enough in its design to feel welcoming to people with staunch and opposing views.
Would enable people from diverse sectors to work together creatively and generate fresh new ideas.
Could be organized quickly and easily.

Driven by these requirements, SPO chose a simple path for maximum public involvement. SPO convened a Maine Land Use Planning Summit using a meeting method known as Open Space Technology (www.openspaceworld.org/).

The summit posed a daunting challenge to the public: How to create the next generation of land-use planning in Maine ? Consistent with Open Space Technology principles, everyone who cared about that challenge was invited to attend (and registration was free). An invitation (see Figure 3), designed in PDF format, was widely circulated to policymakers, planners, town officials, consultants, developers, environmentalists, state agency staff, and citizens interested in planning issues. The summit spanned two days in August at a conference center at the University of Maine . The center had space and dorms for 300 people; 125 signed up.

Figure 3
Invitation to the Summit

A forum using Open Space Technology suits such a challenge because of its unusual design. It is a self-managed gathering, almost unlimited in size (25 to 1,000), of people with common interests oriented toward a shared challenge or theme. There are no speeches, formal presentations, or panel discussions. Instead, using a simple process gently guided by a facilitator, participants create their own agenda, convene their own breakout sessions, and generate their own proceedings.

The facilitator explains the four principles, and one law, that create the conditions for everyone to organize themselves with ease throughout the event. Individuals who have a passionate interest in an issue are invited to post their topic, assign it a time and place, and then convene a group discussion. When all issues have been stated and assigned, participants choose how to spend their time. They are responsible for their own schedules, for exchanging ideas, and for creating whatever outcomes each group may produce. There is no other agenda.

The participants of the Maine Land Use Planning Summit, many of whom were antagonists in other settings, created their two-day agenda in 60 minutes. Five 90-minute sessions over two days filled rapidly with about 30 or 40 discussion topics, like "thinking regionally, acting locally," and "should we abolish the Growth Management Act?" Each convener received several simple blank poster templates on which to record any proposals that emerged as a product of their conversations. With that, they were off and running.

This diverse gathering of Mainers formed, reformed, and formed again during the two days — debating, proposing, discussing, and creating. Energy was high, and the response was enthusiastic. Some 60 discrete proposals surfaced and were recorded on poster templates.

At the end of the first day, the facilitator and SPO staff reviewed all 60 proposals and found that they fell into six rough themes:

Regional Planning
More Proactive Technical Assistance for Towns
More Streamlined, Flexible and Responsive Planning
Clearer State Policies and Standards
More Incentives and Funding
Natural Resource Protection

When the participants reconvened the second day, they were asked to vote on the themes. The vote was not binding, but it gave SPO an indication of which themes people felt were most important.

The "winning" theme by far was Regional Planning, which received two-thirds of the votes. Second and third priorities were More Proactive Technical Assistance and More Streamlined, Flexible and Responsive Planning. These results gave SPO clear direction for focusing the rest of its study.

Figure 4
Agenda at the Summit

Focus Groups

Focus groups are typically used to get an in-depth understanding of specific questions or issues. While commonly used by marketers to understand consumer perceptions, they can be effective for any kind of product, service, or issue — in this case, the effectiveness of the Growth Management Act.

Figure 5
Focus Group Report

For this project, five focus groups were held, one for each of the following sectors: developers, environmentalists, urban service centers, suburban towns, and rural or non-growing towns. SPO supplied lists of 30 to 40 names for each sector, and the consultants recruited randomly from those lists until they had filled 10 seats for each focus group.

A brief outline, known as a guide, was created for the groups. The intent of the guide was to stimulate discussion and identify the underlying feelings and thoughts of the participants on the issues. The same guide was used for all the groups. Themes from the summit were used as the starting point and questions in the guide included: What do you think of the GMA? Is it useful? Effective? What do you think about regional planning? What does it mean? Would it work in Maine ?

The focus groups were held in a professional facility with a video camera and a one-way window where SPO representatives could view the proceedings without being seen. The fact that these sessions were not open to the public and that SPO observers were not in full view raised concerns for a number of people unfamiliar with focus groups. The facilitator pointed out the recording device and the observation window at the opening of each session. The reason for using these devices was to allow the members of the group to voice their opinions without being influenced by audience reaction. Despite the skepticism, within minutes of the discussion starting, people seemed to have forgotten they were being observed and shared their views without hesitation.

OUTCOMES: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As the lengthy public engagement process progressed, themes for change began to emerge. It was clear from the start, for example, that a majority of local and regional planners were unhappy with state reviews of local plans. Specific solutions took much more time to emerge, however. At each stage of the process, state staff would get closer to solutions, but as you will see from the key findings and lessons learned below, it took much repetition to arrive at clear conclusions about the specific changes needed in Maine 's Growth Management program.

The key findings outlined below are a synthesis of what SPO heard during the research process. SPO drafted recommendations based on these findings. Two months prior to the deadline for the final report, draft recommendations were circulated by e-mail, posted on the SPO website for comment, and presented to a number of groups. The final version of key findings and recommendations is provided below. A full length report is available at www.maine.gov/spo.

Key Findings

1. Effective land-use planning is essential to our economic prosperity.

Research shows that unplanned development contributes to Maine 's high property taxes. An example is the property tax cost of building new schools in fast-growing suburbs, while Maine 's overall school population decreases.

At the same time, Maine 's largest industry, tourism, depends on scenic beauty, uncongested roads, and compact downtowns to attract visitors each year (see Figure 6). Maine 's ability to attract retirees and new businesses also depends on its unspoiled character. In addition, natural resource-based industries, including forest products, agriculture, fishing, and aquaculture depend on the availability of and access to natural resources. Some people even say that Maine 's competitive advantage is its "quality of place." Effective land-use planning is essential to sustaining our attractive and productive landscape and keeping the cost of unplanned, sprawling development at a minimum.

Figure 6
Main Street in Bethel, Maine

2. Maine people highly value less developed, rural landscapes.

The evidence is overwhelming that Maine residents highly value a less developed landscape. Almost all comprehensive plans in Maine express a strong desire to preserve open space and maintain rural character. Strong public support for land conservation bonds provides further evidence. Maine voters consistently favor land bonds by two-thirds, according to election results compiled by the Maine secretary of state's office. A values survey conducted in the late 1980s shows that Maine citizens have a unique feeling for the state's land and natural beauty (Market Decisions, Inc., The People of Maine: A Study in Values. Prepared for the Commission on Maine 's Future, April 1989). Furthermore, there are now more than 100 private land trusts in Maine , more than in any other state.

3. There is clear support for land-use planning at the community level.

This project's research shows that, although some frustration with the process exists, there is clear support for land-use planning at the local level. The research also shows support for the 10 state goals in the Growth Management Act. A great deal has been accomplished since the GMA was enacted in 1988. There are now more than 250 local comprehensive plans in place, representing more than 200,000 volunteer hours at the local level.

Planning is now a widely held expectation and has become part of the vocabulary for addressing growth. One of the key accomplishments of the Growth Management Act is that many Maine residents understand and value local planning as a way to have a voice in determining the future of their community.

4. There is widely held dissatisfaction with the process for reviewing local comprehensive plans.

A majority of participants in this project disliked the current state review of comprehensive plans. The most frequent complaint was that state reviews are too prescriptive. At present, SPO's comprehensive plan review rule (Chapter 202) provides for the office to review comprehensive plans in their entirety and find them "consistent" or "inconsistent" with the goals of the GMA. This often results in lengthy findings letters with changes required to achieve consistency. At times, towns receive these letters at the end of their planning process, frustrating committees that have worked hard on their plans for several years.

5. The current comprehensive plan requirements are seen as both too prescriptive and too vague.

Most of the focus of the current growth management program is on meeting the technical requirements of comprehensive plans. Data, inventories, and analyses are assembled by each town and reviewed by the state. SPO estimates that local and state planners spend between two-thirds and three-quarters of their time (and funding) on the technical aspects of assembling data and compiling comprehensive plans, not on the vision and policy components that are the heart of a comprehensive plan.

Furthermore, many have complained that the data requirements are "one size fits all," meaning that every town must address all the requirements in the GMA, regardless of relevance. Although towns may address many requirements by simply noting when they don't apply, our research revealed a widely held perception that towns must gather and analyze data that are irrelevant to them.

While the data, inventory, and analysis requirements were seen as too prescriptive, the state goals and policy requirements in the GMA were seen as too vague. Research participants suggested that offering menus of policies to choose from, all of which would meet state goals, would help clarify the policy requirements of plans.

6. There is a strong desire for improved tools and assistance for local planning.

Strong consensus exists among participants that better tools and assistance for local planning and implementation are needed. Research participants cite the need for prepackaged data and maps, model plans for different types of towns, menus of implementation strategies, graphics and software to show build-out scenarios, and more personal contact with professional planners from the state or regional councils. We also heard a need for help with facilitation. Assistance with visioning, consensus building, and conflict resolution would help towns build more meaningful plans and strategies. In addition to planning assistance, fast-growing towns cite a need for more staff to help review development proposals.

7. Comprehensive planning as currently practiced has not directed growth into locally designated growth areas as intended.

No program measures indicate with reliability how growth and changes in land use are occurring in Maine. However, evidence shows that growth is not being directed to designated growth areas as specified in local plans. In two fast-growing towns, for example, comprehensive plans call for 70 percent of growth to occur in a designated growth area. After 10 years, one of these towns reports that 7 percent of growth has occurred in the growth area; in the other, 2 percent. In another fast-growing town, after 10 years, a zoning ordinance that would implement the goals of the comprehensive plan still is not in place. Local planners say that on average, about 70 percent of the growth in the last 15 years has occurred in locally designated rural areas, places local residents stated in their plans they wanted to protect.

In addition, the vast majority of recent growth in Maine has been lot by lot, not in subdivisions, which receive far more regulatory scrutiny.

Figure 7
Dwellings in relation to designated growth area (yellow), Bath, Maine

8. Implementation of comprehensive plans often does not achieve state or local goals.

Planning has two phases: developing local growth policy (strategies), and following through with ordinances, capital spending, and other actions that support those policies (implementation). Many towns find that, as hard as setting strategy can be, implementation can be even harder.

Strategies often require the residents of a community to make difficult choices. In order to affect growth, a town needs to agree on a vision, make decisions about where growth should occur, and be specific about how that vision will be carried out. Inherent in this task is a conflict between what people want for the community, and what people want — or don't want — for themselves, individually.

The most frequently cited example of this conflict is a community that wants to preserve its rural character but whose rural landowners don't want restrictions on how their land can be developed. These conflicts are what make planning inherently difficult. Participants suggest that conflict resolution requires strong leadership, skills in consensus building, and clear state and regional goals for growth management.

9. In some areas, local planning, zoning, and appeals boards are overwhelmed by development review.

In faster growing areas, volunteer boards struggle to keep up with the volume of proposals for development. In slower growing areas, boards review proposals so rarely that they are unfamiliar with their ordinances and often struggle through a project review. Despite their best efforts, these boards are unable to meet comprehensive plan goals. A variety of tools could be helpful, including software that illustrates "build out" in a town, more model ordinances, and greater professional staff assistance. Still others have suggested restructuring these boards as regional entities with local representation.

10. Most agree that affordable housing is a problem, but there is no consensus on what to do about it.

Affordable housing is a significant factor in where people live, work, and recreate. It plays an important role in the cost of living and overall economic prosperity. Research responses to a question on affordable housing indicate that more work is needed to develop solutions on this issue. While almost everyone agreed that there isn't enough affordable housing, a number of focus group participants indicated that they had no intention of acting on the affordable housing strategies they had written into their plans. Others said affordable housing wasn't a regulatory (zoning) issue, but a question of needing more housing subsidies. Still others were unclear on what "affordable housing" means. Participants suggest there is a need for more in-depth discussion and dialogue on how to move forward on this issue.

11. Property taxes and market forces are significant drivers in land-use development.

Property taxes influence where development occurs in several ways: high property taxes that make service centers less affordable and drive development to outlying areas, competition among towns for "desirable" development, and avoidance of "undesirable" development that drives development elsewhere. Further, participants also mentioned market forces as a driver in development of land and another reason to manage growth. In particular, new growth from seasonal homes and retirees have driven up demand (and prices) for real estate and changed the character of some towns in Maine .

12. State oversight of local plans is important to protect state investments.

The state invests more than $400 million annually in local roads and schools, wastewater treatment, community development, land conservation, and other local infrastructure that drives and targets development. The state is a significant stakeholder in what happens at the local level and has an obligation to see that its investments are prudent, efficient, and well-planned. This requires some degree of oversight of local plans. In addition, national research1 shows that growth management programs with some form of state oversight are far more effective than programs without state involvement.

13. The state must prioritize among matters of state and regional significance that affect local planning.

Participants indicate a strong desire for clearer state and regional goals. At the same time, participants suggest that the state should be less involved in issues of a purely local character. Towns don't want to be told what local issues should be important to them, and most feel that the current law does this. While the distinction between what is a state or a local issue needs to be clarified, examining these two positions together suggests that the state needs to shift its focus from scrutinizing local plans to more clearly identifying matters of state and regional significance.

Further, our research shows a general understanding that state investments — particularly transportation, but also subsidized housing, economic development, and land conservation investments — all affect local planning. Many participants cited a lack of coordination and priority-setting at the state level that makes it difficult for towns to do good local planning. Some say state incentives and strategies sometimes seem to be at odds with one another. They give examples of school siting guidelines and economic development zones being uncoordinated with goals in the Growth Management Act and in local comprehensive plans.

Recommendations

1.0 Enhance Local Planning and Build on the Successes of the Growth Management Act The recommendations in this section address the directive in the legislative Resolve to recommend improvements to the Growth Management Act, rules, and implementation procedures.

1.1 Focus state review on the Future Land Use element of a comprehensive plan (requires revision to rule)

1.2 Provide clear policy guidelines for the Future Land Use element  (to be included in revised rule and posted on website)

1.3 Provide towns and regional agencies with better tools, data, and assistance

Provide regional data and analysis to towns
Give towns more assistance earlier in the planning process
Provide better tools and training to towns and regions

1.4 Track growth and monitor progress

Conduct in-depth case studies of the implementation of comprehensive plans
Conduct long-term monitoring of development patterns using utility data

2.0 Shift State Focus to Issues of Regional and Statewide Significance The recommendations in this section address the directive in the resolve to review and make recommendations on the effectiveness of land-use planning in Maine .

2.1 Improve state level planning and coordination of state investments (SPO working with other state agencies)

2.2 Engage the public in two pilot regional development projects that include visions and goals around the following elements:

Transportation
Housing
Economic Development
Natural Resource Protection

2.3 Address how we review large capital projects with regional impacts (SPO working with state agencies)

2.4 Create an affordable-housing study group to develop next steps based on an existing report

LESSONS LEARNED

Many lessons were learned from this experience. Here are some of the highlights:

1. Deep listening to the public, via the Land Use Planning Summit using Open Space Technology, created a foundation of trust.

SPO achieved three important things from the forum using Open Space Technology. The first was credibility with constituents. SPO said at the beginning of the event that it was there to listen, and then it listened for two days. Going into the event, SPO had low credibility with some members of the planning community. As one participant said at the end of the second day, "We came here with our shotguns loaded, but we never had a reason to shoot them." Just by holding this event, SPO began to improve its relationship with constituents.

Figure 8
“Discussion" During Land Use Planning Summit

Second, people started to believe change was possible and that SPO was serious about leading that change. As one participant put it, "I've been through about five of these reviews (of the GMA), but this time I think something might actually happen."

Third, SPO gained a wealth of new ideas. The SPO Land Use Team sifted through and used them as the basis of their next phase of work, which was convening focus groups. Thus the major themes from the summit were refined and tested before they were put before the Maine legislature as recommendations.

2. Focus groups did not provide solutions, but they did provide a means of understanding perceptions.

The focus groups were designed to take the themes from the summit and determine solutions people would find acceptable. But it turned out to be difficult to get people to focus on solutions. People needed to talk about what they thought was wrong with the system. Despite a good effort on the part of professional facilitator Curt Mildner, people weren't ready to talk about solutions.

One of the surprises of the focus groups was how deep and pervasive the pain was on the subject of comprehensive planning. Many local officials and planners were bitter about their experiences with comprehensive plans. Sometimes, after years of hard work, plans were found inconsistent by the state, or were found consistent by the state only to be turned down by voters in the town.

While SPO didn't get all of the information it was seeking, the focus groups proved valuable for SPO staff. Hearing the unvarnished comments of a wide range of constituents was both depressing and enlightening for them. In the end, this helped energize SPO staff to develop solid recommendations for change.

3. Articulating what isn't working is essential to establishing credibility.

One of the dangers of saying that a system is broken is that it can set up a cycle of finger pointing and blame. However, identifying the failures and problems with planning in Maine, without blaming, was important to establishing credibility for SPO.

Two major failures were openly discussed: planning hasn't directed growth into growth areas as intended, and the state review of plans wasn't working well for anyone. The SPO could not have moved beyond these problems without fully and publicly articulating what they were.

4. The state needed to take the lead in crafting solutions.

Throughout the public engagement process, SPO continually asked for ideas that would address the problems people identified. While people were glad to offer generalities such as "we need more technical assistance" or "we need regional planning," only a few people were able to articulate specific solutions or strategies for achieving them. In the end, it was SPO staff that wrestled with the details and crafted recommendations.

There appeared to be several reasons for the lack of solutions from the public. One, mentioned earlier, was that people needed to express their dissatisfaction and weren't able to focus on solutions. Another is the inherent difficulty in stepping back from the day-to-day work responsibilities in order to see new ways of doing things. And another was the complexity of the issue, which involved state, regional, and local entities operating under a complex law and rule.

In the end, people seemed both relieved and appreciative that the state had taken the lead in crafting recommendations. People found it easier to respond to a "straw man" than to offer detailed solutions from scratch.

5. Making changes in a large system requires an iterative and collaborative process.

The nine-month process of summits, focus groups, comments, and what seemed like endless meetings, entailed a tremendous amount of work. SPO took great care to respond personally to everyone who submitted written comments. On top of that, because the public sessions yielded few solutions, SPO spent countless hours analyzing material and crafting recommendations. There were times during the process when SPO staff wondered if the effort would be worth it.

It wasn't until SPO presented recommendations to the legislature that staff members realized the true value of the collaborative work. They had vetted the ideas with so many people and reiterated the listening process so many times that the recommendations were rock solid. Because the process had been complete and inclusive, the legislature was able to give an enthusiastic endorsement of the recommendations. Considering that some legislators were ready to de-fund the state's planning program 12 months earlier, this shows the value of a reiterative and collaborative process.

6. Changes need to be made one step at a time.

Quite honestly, SPO would love to make all the recommended changes right away. But the fact is, the state office can take only one step at a time. In order to offer the proposed technical assistance, planning tools, and regional planning, SPO has to free up staff time. To do that, SPO needs to get out from under the law and rule that requires them to review every word of a comprehensive plan.

The first step, already under way, is to change the rule for plan reviews. By January 1, 2007 , SPO will have a new rule that focuses state review on the Future Land Use Plan section of a comprehensive plan. Other sections of a plan will receive a more abbreviated review, perhaps in the form of checklists that towns fill out to indicate that they have included required information. Increased technical assistance, regional pilot plans and other recommended activities will follow the completion of the new rule.

It will be easier and more productive for the planning community, local officials, and the public to participate in changes one step at a time, too. Support for the proposed shift to regional planning will take time to build. People will need to grapple with how to define a region, what kind of democratic representation is needed, and what changes in current governance would facilitate regional planning. The proposed "regional development" pilot projects are intended to be learning labs to test new ideas. The pilot projects are scheduled to begin in 2007 and are expected to take 18 to 24 months to complete.

7. The greatest planning challenge of our time is finding a balance between private property rights and the common good.

Solving Maine 's biggest planning problem — a common problem in most of the United States — is balancing private property rights and the common good. Every town in Maine wants to preserve its rural character and open space. But individuals want to be able to do what they want with their land, without restriction. In order to preserve open space, some restrictions on development are required. This is one of the classic dilemmas of our time.

The answer, SPO believes, lies in engaging people in a regional planning process that is democratic, that has meaning and authority, and that has such compelling benefits that people will choose to make sacrifices in order to support it. The first step SPO will take toward regional planning is to conduct two pilot projects beginning in 2007.

Is this idealistic? Perhaps. But don't forget that this country started with 13 colonies that chose to become a union. And don't forget that the union was formed through an iterative, collaborative process that resulted in ratifying the Constitution. Based on the success of this review of the Growth Management Act, we anticipate that the residents of Maine will find an appropriate balance between individual property rights and the desire to preserve the "quality of place" that is Maine's most precious asset.

Susan Inches currently serves as the deputy director of the Maine State Planning Office. In this capacity she has designed and participated in a number of public engagement processes on issues including land-use planning, solid waste and natural resource based industries. Prior to joining the SPO in 2004, she worked for the Maine Department of Marine Resources for seven years, supporting the fishing and aquaculture industries. Sue holds a bachelor's degree from the College of the Atlantic and an master's degree from the University of New Hampshire.

Jay W. Vogt is an organizational development consultant who specializes in facilitating large group meetings and retreats. He has facilitated more than 40 forums using Open Space Technology attended by about 4,000 participants, more then 50 large group events attended by more than 5,000 people, and hundreds of smaller meetings and retreats. He founded his private practice, Peoplesworth, in 1982 to serve leaders and their organizations, primarily in New England . Clients include nonprofit organizations, government agencies, small, fast-growth businesses, and corporations. Jay holds a M.Ed. in Counseling from Antioch University New England.

NOTE

1 Freece, John W. National Center for Smart Growth and Education at the University of Maryland . "Twenty Lessons from Maryland 's Smart Growth Initiative." Vermont Journal of Environmental Law; and the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. The Consequences of How Pennsylvania Is Growing, December 2003.

Visit Peoplesworth.com to learn more about how we help organizations.