Source: Online Legislative Action Center http://cw2k.capweb.net/planning

DONOR STATE COMPLICATIONS LINGER

This week the House of Representatives is scheduled to take up H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act: Legacy for Users (TEA-LU). The bill would reauthorize TEA-21 and provide $284 billion over six years. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved the bill on March 2.

The measure essentially mirrors legislation passed by the House last year. Negotiations on a compromise measure broke down in conference committee leading to an extension of TEA-21 that runs through the end of May. The funding level of $284 billion is higher than the House bill from a year ago and matches the amount proposed by the Bush Administration.

While the bill embraces the President’s $284 billion spending level, it allocates funds differently among various program categories, placing emphasis on enacting Congressional-directed spending programs, such as through High Priority Projects, Projects of National/Regional Significance and Dedicated Truck Lanes. Some 3,300 earmarked projects are included in the bill.

By directing more resources to projects and by increasing commitments to the Minimum Guarantee program, which delivers unprogrammed dollars to the states, funding to the core programs (e.g. Bridge, CMAQ, NHS, Interstate Maintenance and STP, including its subprograms such as Enhancements) is declining in relative terms. As a result, compared to the Administration’s SAFETEA proposal and last year’s Senate bill, H.R. 3 provides for much less growth in total funding commitments to these "core" programs.

Differences remain among key House leaders regarding the minimum return to states that pay more into the highway trust fund than they receive. Currently, donor states are guaranteed a 90.5 percent return. House T&I Committee Chairman Don Young (R-AK) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) reached agreement on upping the bill’s donor state guarantee. Details were not provided in the version of the bill approved by committee. It is not yet clear what the impact of the agreement would be on individual states.

Despite the lingering concerns over state returns, House leaders want to move the bill quickly and then resolve outstanding issues in a conference committee. On the Senate side, action has been slower. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) has tentatively scheduled a markup for March 16, but the committee is embroiled in debate over the President’s ‘Clear Skies’ bill that may delay consideration of the reauthorization bill. Senate action on the measure will likely be pushed well into April. Chairman Inhofe is believed to favor passing a measure at the $284 billion level but he has maintained support for a 95 percent return to donor states.

Numerous policy issues remain to be resolved, including MPO funding, planning processes, commitments to core programs, transit guarantees, and environmental provisions. These will have to be resolved when the competing House and Senate bills are reconciled in conference.

The Senate Budget Committee begins work this week on an FY06 budget resolution. The committee is scheduled to vote on Thursday, March 10. Budget resolutions do not carry the force of law and do not require the President’s signature. Such resolutions do however set broad spending caps and revenue targets. Budget resolutions also provide important procedural advantages and limit the ability of Senators to filibuster.

Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-NH) has pledged to adhere as closely as possible to the overall levels proposed by President Bush. However, there will be numerous challenges to proposed cuts and program elimination when the budget is considered by the full Senate, which is likely to occur next week.

Last year, difficulties in passing the budget on the Senate floor led to no resolution being adopted. Senate Republican leaders hope to avoid a similar fate this year. But, significant conflicts over deep cuts in many popular programs have already split GOP ranks.

Among the programs generating the most controversy is the proposed elimination of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The action on a budget resolution will not be final word on the issue but does represent an important battle in the fight over the future of federal community development programs. Last week, 55 senators, including 14 Republicans, sent a letter to the Budget Committee urging them to reject the Administration’s CDBG proposal.

APA is committed to preserving the vital CDBG program. Please visit our online CDBG action center to find out more details and how you can get involved. With the budget slated for consideration by the Senate next week, now is the time to let your Senators know how important CDBG is to your community. You can also download a copy of the joint letter to the Budget Committee and see whether your Senators co-signed the letter.

For more information, visit;
www.planning.org/legislation/CDBG/

SMOOTH CONFIRMATION APPEARS LIKELY

President Bush has nominated acting-EPA Administrator and career EPA staffer Stephen Johnson to become the nation’s 11th EPA Administrator. Johnson would take over for former Utah Governor Mike Leavitt who is now Secretary of Health and Human Services. Johnson has been acting Administrator since Leavitt’s departure.

Announcing the nomination, President Bush noted that Johnson would be first "professional scientist" to lead the agency. The reaction on Capitol Hill was largely positive. Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee James Jeffords (I-VT) applauded the nomination and paved the way for a smooth confirmation.

Johnson’s primary expertise has been in the area of pesticide regulation. He was Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances before rising to become Deputy Administrator in 2004.

Environmentalists largely praised the non-controversial nomination. However, some observers cautioned that the nomination reflects the diminished status of EPA within the Bush Administration. The real locus of environmental policy-making authority, they claim, rests with the White House Council on Environmental Quality. The head of CEQ, James Connaughton, was considered a possible replacement for Leavitt.

American Planning Association
Legislative Action Alert

Act Now to Help Save CDBG
President’s Budget Eliminates CDBG

Take Action!
Ask Congress to Preserve Investment in Community Development

February 15, 2005

In its proposed FY 2006 budget, the Bush Administration proposed an historic, sweeping restructuring of federal aid to municipalities for community development. The plan calls for 18 existing programs, mostly based in HUD’s community planning and development program, to be consolidated into a new “Strengthening America’s Communities Initiative” grant program to be administered by the Department of Commerce. Overall funding for community development would be dramatically scaled back under the plan. The popular and effective Community Development Block Grant would be eliminated outright.

Congress must approve the President’s plan when it adopts the FY 2006 budget. Contact Congress today and urge your elected representatives to preserve CDBG and the federal commitment to improving America’s communities. Tell Congress that CDBG should be maintained as a separate program with funding at least equal to its current allocation. Access and eligibility to CDBG funding should not be further restricted.

Funding for the new “Strengthening America’s Communities” program would be pegged at $3.71 billion, however that amount represents a significant cut. FY 2005 funding for the Community Development Block Grant, one of the 18 consolidated programs, was $4.7 billion. Other consolidated programs include the Empowerment Zone / Enterprise Community and the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative.

The existing CDBG program would be eliminated. The new Commerce Department-led grant program would be based on new criteria. Administration officials indicated that the new criteria, although not yet fully defined, would likely be considerably more restrictive. The White House Office of Management and Budget also alluded to new “accountability measures” that communities would have to meet. Officials at a HUD budget briefing stated that separate authorizing legislation outlining the program would be sent to Congress with the Commerce Department taking responsibility for drafting that proposal.

CDBG has been a critical resource for America’s cities and neighborhoods for 30 years. The program has a proven track record in attracting private investment averaging a return of three private dollars to every public dollar invested.

CDBG is an essential tool for creating and sustaining affordable housing. HUD estimates that in 2004 alone CDBG directly supported the rehabilitation of 19,000 rental units and 112,000 single- family homes. Last year, CDBG resources aided more than 11,000 families to become new homeowners.

CDBG creates jobs and builds infrastructure. CDBG is the tool planners and cities use to improve neighborhoods and communities. As more communities struggle with the costs of repairing, securing and modernizing critical infrastructure, CDBG resources will be needed more than ever. Nine million Americans benefited last year from infrastructure build or repaired with CDBG funds.

Act now to save CDBG and renew our national commitment to building strong, safe, vital communities. Tell Congress to maintain CDBG as a separate program providing direct and flexible funding to local governments.

Get involved in APA’s grassroots network, Planners Legislative Action Network - PLAN, at www.planning.org/legislation. Make your voice heard directly during APA’s Legislative Conference and Advocacy Day, May 11 – 13. Details are available at www.planning.org/legislation/2005policyconf.htm.

Presidential Nominee Announces "Livable Communities" Plan

WASHINGTON, DC : The American Planning Association (APA), the nation's largest nonprofit public interest organization committed to community planning, praised former Vermont governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean for announcing his support for planning. On July 31, Dean unveiled a four-point environmental agenda that included helping state governments update archaic planning statutes so that cities and towns can plan more livable communities.

In a speech at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in San Francisco, Dean said:

"The federal government can be a better partner to state and local governments by sharing information about what works. You know, over half our states are still using planning statutes written during the Hoover Administration or earlier. With just a small investment, the federal government could help states update these important laws."

Dean's position is consistent with APA's long-standing efforts to help state and local governments reform outdated laws that become barriers to planning more livable communities.

"APA has long maintained that there is an appropriate federal role in supporting the many innovative community planning initiatives happening in states and communities across the country," noted Jason Jordan, APA's Legislative Coordinator. "We agree with Gov. Dean that a small investment would pay significant dividends in the form of higher quality of life for all citizens. Livability and planning should be the cornerstones of our national environmental policy.

"Gov. Dean should be applauded for promoting these issues in a national campaign," Jordan said, adding: "We hope that all of the candidates declare their intention to support strong community planning."

APA released a study in 2002 that found that outdated planning laws were preventing states from effectively implementing measures to address urban sprawl, protect family farms, and coordinate infrastructure expansion. As a result, states were losing billions of dollars in unmanaged, inefficient development. At the time, Vermont was listed among only 12 states that had made moderate to substantial changes to state laws to facilitate more efficient community planning.

The study was released in conjunction with APA's Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook, the culmination of a seven-year project to develop model zoning and planning statutes for states to use in updating their laws. In the three years since the Guidebook's release, 15 states have undertaken efforts to reform outdated planning and zoning laws.

APA's Policy Department is leading a review of the U. S. Forest Service's proposed changes to regulations - on November 27, 2002, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service released its proposed land and resource management planning rule, which will govern the development of each land management plan on the nation's 155 national forests and 20 grasslands.

As part of APA's review process, a group of planners with expertise in forest planning is being assembled to function as an advisory team to review the rule and assist in the development of comments. The only time commitment that will be involved would be to review the rules and provide input in writing to the APA Government Affairs staff. There is no travel involved or conference calls ( unless of course the group that is formed would like one..). Staff will assemble the comments into a comprehensive working document.

Here's the link to information on the proposed rule change: http://www.planning.org/legislation/forestserv.htm

This calls for a quick turn around--for those who are interested, please contact Devin Cahill at dcahill@planning.org or 202.872.0611.

On April 23, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, provided a solid win for the planning process in the case of Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The issue at hand was whether or not a temporary moratorium on land development constitutes a taking of property. In a far-reaching decision, the Court found that the use of moratoria, in this case, as part of the planning process does not constitute taking of property requiring compensation to the landowner. Rather than forcing landowners and planning officials to rush through the development process, the Court's decision affirmed the need for communities to take the time to think things through and make informed decisions before breaking ground. APA had filed an amicus brief stating the view that planners need to have to ability to use interim development controls and temporary moratoria to avoid making decisions that could adversely impact the natural environment and surrounding communities.

On April 25, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, by a vote of 12-7, gave final approval to S. 975, the Community Character Act. This legislation recognizes that the federal government can be a partner with localities in building vibrant, livable places without intrusive federal mandates. The Community Character Act, introduced by Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee, would provide a much-needed incentive to help states and localities initiate and implement smart growth planning strategies.

Read more about the APA Amicus Curiae Committee and APA's Tahoe brief at www.planning.org/amicusbriefs

Read more about the Community Character Act at www.planning.org/legislation

When Congress returns after the August recess, land conservation programs will be prominent among the major agenda items awaiting action. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA, H.R. 701) is at the top of the wish list for smart growth and land conservation advocates. The bill survived its first test of the 107th Congress when it passed through mark up on July 25 in the House Resources Committee. Many hours were spent debating contentious amendments, but the measure was finally approved with bipartisan support 29-12. The bill is now set for consideration by the full House where it was overwhelmingly approved last year.

CARA would provide guaranteed funding for a wide array of conservation programs for 15 years from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease revenues. CARA would make money available to an array of conservation programs that have been consistently under-funded. Among the many programs funded under CARA are the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR), and the Historic Preservation Fund.

Although CARA was successful in the Resources Committee and generated broad bipartisan support with 236 cosponsors, there are still struggles ahead. Despite the recent momentum, CARA faces fierce opposition from those opposed to further federal land acquisition and those concerned about taking funding authority away from congressional appropriators. Advocates hope to press for quick action by the House.

Progress in the House has led to renewed activity in the Senate with companion legislation (S.1328) was introduced by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) on August 2. Despite lingering opposition from western state Senators and appropriators, she is joined in support of the CARA concept by some key legislators, including the Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Ranking Member Frank Murkowski (R-AK).

Organizations endorsing CARA are encouraging CARA supporters to use August, a time of year known for outdoor recreation and enjoyment of the nation's parks and natural resources, as an opportunity to reinforce support for CARA in Congress. Faxes and email in support of CARA can be sent online using APA's legislative action center at http://cw2k.capweb.net/planning.

Between 1988 and 1995, the Department of Defense slated 97 military installations for closure and numerous others for mission realignment. Since then DoD has repeatedly asked Congress to authorize additional closures under the Base Realignment and Closure process. Never wildly popular on Capitol Hill, BRAC became anathema when critics charged that the Clinton Administration had saved bases in California and Texas slated for closure for political reasons. With a new Administration, Congress will reexamine the issue of base closure when it considers the 2002 defense authorization bill in September.

The Defense Department has released its proposal for a new round of closures. The Efficient Facilities Initiative (EFI) authorizes a single round of closures in 2003 based on recommendations from an independent commission. The 9-member commission would review recommendations made by the Secretary of Defense and then send their own final recommendations for closures to the President. The President would then have two weeks to accept or reject the recommendations as a whole. If rejected, the commission can provide revised recommendations to the President. Should the second report also be rejected by the President, the process ends. Once accepted by the President, the recommendations become binding unless Congress enacts a Joint Resolution rejecting the report on an "all or none" basis.

DoD's EFI proposal would allow base privatization only if specifically authorized as part of the commission's recommendation. Partial privatization and expanded leasing authority now in place would be continued. In addition, EFI would continue to allow no cost economic development transfers to local redevelopment authorities (LRA) if the property is used to generate jobs and the proceeds are reinvested in the economic redevelopment of the installations or surrounding community. The proposal also addresses the issue of environmental clean-up costs by reauthorizing the transfer of property in connection with remediation by allowing payments to LRAs and making indemnification available for costs resulting from undisclosed contamination.

The success of the proposal is far from assured. Critics on the House Armed Services Committee have already voiced opposition to new closures, and other approaches are emerging. For example, Reps. James Hansen (R-UT), Joel Hefley (R-CO), and Vic Snyder (D-AR) have proposed altering the system so the commission has to initially identify bases that are safe from closure. Others have suggested that the DoD approach does not provide a sufficient role for Congress and still others questioned the actual cost savings from prior rounds.

The Senate has joined the House in consideration of legislation to establish a national affordable housing trust fund. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), joined by 16 cosponsors, introduced the legislation on July 25, 2001. S. 1248 would establish a permanent source of funding for construction, rehabilitation and preservation of housing for low-income people. The campaign's goal is 1.5 million units of housing by 2010. Most of the housing would be rental housing, although home ownership assistance is included in the Senate bill. The money for the trust fund would be drawn from excess revenue generated by the Federal Housing Administration and Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae).

At a press conference held in support of the Senate bill, Smart Growth America Executive Director Don Chen specifically addressed the linkage between the housing trust fund and smart growth. Chen described how the lack of housing choices for many workers contributes to uncontrolled growth and mismatches between jobs and housing opportunities. "The establishment of a permanent source of funding to provide Americans with more affordable housing choices is essential to helping communities fight urban sprawl," Chen said. He was joined by representatives from the National Low Income Housing Coalition and the National Alliance to End Homelessness. Support for the trust fund legislation continues to receive broad grassroots support as the number of state and local organizations endorsing the legislation has risen to 920.

The halls of Congress are quiet with Members back in their home district for the August recess. Recess presents advocates with an opportunity to do some grassroots lobbying on behalf of issues critical to planning. Most Members of Congress use recesses as a chance to meet with constituents and conduct local "town hall" meetings. You can contact Members' district offices to set up meetings or find out about any town hall meetings scheduled in your area. In addition, you can also submit letters or email to congressional offices on pending issues of concern. Without the pressure of floor activity, many staffers will have more time to consider and respond to constituent communications.

APA can help. Access our online action center to send emails or faxes in support of such vital bill as the Community Character Act (H.R. 1433 / S. 975), CARA (H.R. 701), the Post Office Community Partnership (H.R. 1861 / S. 897), and brownfields reform (S. 350).

You can visit our action center at http://cw2k.capweb.net/planning. If you need contact information for your Representative or Senators district office, contact APA's government affairs department at 202.872.0611.

APA will continue to press its congressional agenda with a special event this fall, Planner's Day on Capitol Hill. On September 27, leaders in planning from across the country will come to Washington to meet with Members of Congress and staff about important legislation. Contact APA for more information on this program.

URGE CONGRESS TO RESTORE FUNDING FOR URBAN PARKS AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM (UPARR)

April 19, 2001
For more information: Jason Jordan, Govt. Affairs Coord., 202.872.0611

In the detailed federal budget proposal released on April 9, the Bush Administration called for the total elimination of funding for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR). This program provides direct assistance to urban localities for recreation facilities and parks. UPARR grants encourage systematic local planning, innovative programs to increase recreation or improve government operation of parks, and capital improvements for renovation or development of urban parks.

Tell your Representative and Senators that urban parks demand support, not broken promises and budget shell games. At a time when 82% of voters of both political parties support additional spending for open space and recreation, it is unthinkable that Washington would abandon the parks, ball fields and recreation centers of urban America. Ask Congress to restore funding for UPARR in its Interior appropriations bill at levels promised by the Land Conservation Preservation and Infrastructure Improvement Trust Fund.

In 2001, UPARR was appropriated $28.9 million, the highest level since 1983. UPARR was funded last year as part of the Land Conservation Preservation and Infrastructure Improvement Trust Fund. This fund was established as a compromise to the Conservation and Reinvestment Act and was intended to guarantee funding for UPARR and other conservation programs. According to the provisions of the LCPII trust fund established in the 2001 Department of Interior appropriations bill, funding for UPARR was schedule to increase each year for six years. Instead, the Bush dministration has rescinded the promise of stable levels of funding for parks and recreational opportunities in urban America.

Using a budget shell game, the Administration has made urban parks eligible for funding through the state Land and Water Conservation Fund. However, a wide array of activities can be funded through state LWCF resources and urban parks would be forced to compete with many other programs. In addition, this notion of pitting conservation programs against one another through LWCF is contrary to the central goal of the LCPII trust fund which was to provide stable, guaranteed resources over several years. This type of funding is needed because frequently needed capital improvement programs cannot be completed in single fiscal year and multi-year funding is vital for cities to leverage federal funding to attract additional investment and secure financing.

In coming weeks, Congress will begin consideration of appropriations for individual agencies and programs. Now is the time to tell your Representative and Senators to support UPARR. In its budget resolution blueprint, the Senate approved additional funding for conservation programs.

In an amendment to the budget resolution offered by Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK) and adopted without a formal vote, the Senate added $1.76 billion to fund programs, like UPARR, included in LCPII but ignored by the Bush Administration. While budget resolutions are not binding, they do serve to influence the actions of appropriators. The amendment essentially opens the door for planners to advocate for restoration of UPARR funding as provided under LCPII last year.

The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior will have initial jurisdiction over UPARR appropriations. If your Representative or Senator is a member of the subcommittee, it is important that you make your voice heard. Contact your Representative and Senators, get sample letters, and access updates on legislative activity through APA's online legislative action center at http://cw2k.capweb.net/planning

ASK YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TO COSPONSOR H.R. 1433

April 6, 2001
For more information: Jason Jordan, Govt. Affairs Coord., 202.872.0611

On April 4, 2001, the Community Character Act of 2001 (H.R. 1433) was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD). The bill would authorize a $50 million grant program for federal assistance to states for reform of outdated state planning statutes and improved state and regional planning. H.R. 1433 was referred to the House Resources Committee and House Financial Services Committee.

With its reintroduction this year at the start of the new Congress and with bipartisan support, we are optimistic about the chances for success. But we need your help. Contact your Representative and ask him/her to support H.R. 1433.

Joining Reps. Blumenauer and Gilchrest as original cosponsors are Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Sam Farr (D-CA), Paul Gillmor (R-OH), Joe Hoeffel (D-PA), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH), Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), and Mark Udall (D-CO). A similar version of this legislation was introduced at the end of the 106th Congress.

This legislation recognizes that the Federal government can, and should, be a constructive partner with those communities seeking innovative solutions to improving local quality of life through better planning and land use. Planning is among the most effective ways to deal with growth issues facing states and communities. Passage of H.R. 1433 is one of the most important and beneficial things Congress could do to help promote local solutions to such pressing issues as downtown revitalization, traffic congestion, urban sprawl and open space protection.

H.R. 1433 would provide $50 million to states, multi-state regional programs and tribal governments to assist in revising land use planning legislation and developing comprehensive plans. The bill is intended to support efforts to promote improved quality of life, economic development and community livability through planning reform. Grants could be used to obtain technical assistance and support for a state's review of growth and planning laws. Activities such as researching and drafting state legislation, conducting workshops, holding public forums, promoting regional cooperation and supporting state planning initiatives would qualify for federal assistance. Grant guidelines call for planning that coordinates transportation, housing and education with infrastructure investments and conserves historic, scenic and natural resources.

Currently, more than half the states are still operating under planning statutes devised in the 1920s. And, even in those states with updated planning laws, communities are struggling to find and implement tools to grow smarter and in ways consistent with the values and vision of the citizens. This legislation promotes smart growth principles and encourages states to create or update the framework necessary for good planning without imposing federal mandates. H.R. 1433 would provide critically needed federal support for planning reform but would not undermine local control of land use decisions. This program is a small investment that will bring substantial dividends in improving the livability of our cities, towns and neighborhoods.

Contact your Representative, get sample letters, and access updates on legislative activity through APA's online legislative action center at http://cw2k.capweb.net/planning