|
|
The Administration has ignored pleas from townships to help them respond intelligently to haphazard
growth. It also has not acted to help citizens become aware of the costs of suburban sprawl, or the fact that it's
considered one of Michigan's top problems. This occurred despite the report's finding that a crucial problem is
the public's "lack of environmental awareness ... [which] may make it more difficult to make lifestyle changes
that may be necessary to correct many of the problems identified in this project." In other words, if the state is
truly intent on solving sprawl, it needs to help citizens understand their role in contributing to it.
The Administration did, however, use the study to back up other actions. "We knew businesses were
leaving the urban core to set up in rural townships, and one of the problems was the cost of toxic cleanup,"
said David Ladd, the governor's environmental policy advisor. The Administration worked with industrial
interests and legislative allies in the House and Senate to change the state's toxic waste cleanup law. The
changes made it easier to redevelop old industrial sites in Michigan's inner cities, but conservationists point
out that the Administration has shifted much of the cost of cleaning up toxic sites from polluters to the public.
(See the articles on pages 35-38.)
Moving Backward
Mr. Ladd and other members of the Administration cite the changes in the toxic cleanup law as evidence
that the Governor is not ignoring sprawl. Efforts to encourage new economic activity in cities could help limit
the pressure to develop outside them, Mr. Ladd said.
However the Administration has been exceedingly reluctant to address the bigger picture to address sprawl:
• Efforts by business leaders, environmentalists, farmers, and citizens to encourage the state to consider
proposals to strengthen land use policy have been attacked as "Soviet-style centralized planning" by Russell
Harding, director of the Department of Environmental Quality.
• In 1994 the Michigan Department of Agriculture published a study on farmland protection that recommended
several crucial changes in state policy. These included providing assistance to local governments to
establish agriculture security areas, creating a state-funded program for local farmland purchase of development
rights projects, and focusing the department's overall policy on farmland protection. None were adopted.
• Most disappointing to conservationists is the Legislature's action in 1996 to open up the state law for
subdividing land. The old law, already regarded as the worst in the country, allowed large parcels to be
divided without any local government oversight. Succumbing to pressure from the homebuilder and real estate
lobbies, the Legislature weakened it further.
When the Governor signed the amended Subdivision Control Act in March 1997 he said he was doing so
"reluctantly" and that the Legislature should organize a task force to review the law again. The task force
never formed, and the Governor has not prodded lawmakers to act. G
CONTACTS: David Ladd, 517-335-7824; Julie Stoneman, land programs director, Michigan Environmental
Council, 517-487-9539; Keith Schneider at the Institute, 616-882-4723. |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 