In Maine, the state government does not require municipalities to plan, but it provides technical assistance, incentives, and state review to encourage local comprehensive planning. Most municipalities submit plans; the majority adopt plans that are consistent with state goals. Voluntary planning may therefore constitute a viable alternative to planning mandates if states offer incentives and assistance. The research finds little evidence that higher status municipalities are more likely to plan, casting doubt on the hypothesis that planning is driven by exclusionary motives in Maine. Municipalities’ planning actions correlate more consistently with indicators of their residents’ attitudes about property rights.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbot, Carl , Deborah Howe, and Sy Adler. 1994. Planning the Oregon way: A twenty-year evaluation. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.
2.
Agresti, Alan . 1990. Categorical data analysis. New York: John Wiley.
3.
Anglin, Roland . 1990. Diminishing utility: The effect of citizen preferences for local growth. Urban Affairs Quarterly25 (4): 684-696.
4.
Baer, William C.1997. General plan evaluation criteria: An approach to making better plans. Journal of the American Planning Association63: 329-344.
5.
Beaudoin, Jack . 1997. Biddeford councilors pass new growth plan. Portland Press Herald, 6 November, 1B.
6.
Bish, Robert . 1971. The public economy of metropolitan areas. Chicago: Markham.
7.
Bollens, Scott A.1992. State growth management: Intergovernmental frameworks and policy objectives. Journal of the American Planning Association58 (4): 454-466.
8.
Burby, Raymond J. , Peter J. May, Philip R. Berke, Linda C. Dalton, Steven P. French, and Edward J. Kaiser. 1997. Making governments plan: State experiments in managing land use. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
9.
Cawley, R. McGreggor . 1993. Federal land, western anger: The sage-brush rebellion and environmental politics. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
10.
Cobb, R. L.1994. Mandatory planning: An overview. PAS Memo (July).
11.
Connerly, Charles E. , and James E. Frank. 1986. Predicting support for local growth controls. Social Science Quarterly67 (3): 572-586.
12.
Dalton, Linda C. , and Raymond J. Burby. 1994. Mandates, plans, and planners: Building local commitment to development management. Journal of the American Planning Association60 (4): 444-461.
13.
Danielson, Michael N.1976. The politics of exclusion. New York: Columbia University Press.
14.
De Grove, John M.1984. Land, growth, & politics. Washington, DC: Planners Press, American Planning Association.
15.
Deakin, Elizabeth . 1989. Growth controls and growth management: A summary and review of empirical research. In Understanding Growth Management: Critical Issues and a Research Agenda, edited by David J. Brower, David R. Godschalk, and Douglas R. Porter, 3-21. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
16.
Donovan, Todd , and Max Neiman. 1992. Citizen mobilization and the adoption of local growth control. Western Political Quarterly45 (3): 651-675.
17.
Echeverria, John , and Raymond Booth Eby, eds. 1995. Let the people judge: Wise use and the property rights movement. Washington, DC: Island Press.
18.
Emerson, Kirk . 1996. State property rights legislation: A policy development perspective. Paper presented at the Joint International Congress of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning and the Association of European Schools of Planning, Toronto, Canada, July.
19.
Frieden, Bernard . 1979. The environmental protection hustle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
Fulton, William . 1999. Ring around the region. Planning65 (3): 18-21.
21.
Gale, Dennis E. , and Suzanne Hart. 1992. Public support for local comprehensive planning under statewide growth management: Insights from Maine. Journal of Planning Education and Research11 (3): 192-205.
22.
Gottdiener, M. , and Max Neiman. 1981. Characteristics of support for local growth control. Urban Affairs Quarterly17 (1): 55-73.
23.
Howitt, Arnold M.1993. Growth management in Maine. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Papers Series. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
24.
Innes, Judith E.1992. Group processes and the social construction of growth management: Florida, Vermont, and New Jersey. Journal of the American Planning Association58 (4): 440-453.
25.
Kitzhaber, John A.1995. Veto message to the State Senate, SB 600, 1995; attached to press release, “Governor Kitzhaber Vetoes So Called Eco-take Bill” [cited June 1999]. Available from http://www.governor.state.or.us/governor/press/p950713.htm
26.
Knaap, Gerrit J.1987. Self-interest and voter support for Oregon’s land use controls. Journal of the American Planning Association53 (1): 92-98.
27.
Liroff, Richard A. , and G. Gordon Davis. 1981. Protecting open space: Land use control in the Adirondack Park. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
28.
Logan, John R. , and Harvey L. Molotch. 1987. Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. Berkeley: University of California Press.
29.
May, Peter J.1994. Analyzing mandate design: State mandates governing hazard prone areas. Publius: The Journal of Federalism24 (2): 1-16.
30.
May, Peter J.1995. Can cooperation be mandated? Implementing intergovernmental environmental management in New South Wales and New Zealand. Publius: The Journal of Federalism25 (1): 89-113.
31.
May, Peter J. , Raymond J. Burby, Neil J. Ericksen, John W. Handmer, Jennifer E. Dixon, Sarah Michaels, and D. Ingle Smith. 1996. Environmental management and governance: Intergovernmental approaches to hazards and sustainability. London: Routledge.
32.
McGovern, Douglas G. 1999. The analysis of the forestry practices referenda in the state of Maine in 1996 and 1997. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.
33.
Medler, Jerry , and Alvin Mushkatel. 1979. Urban-rural class conflict in Oregon land-use planning. Western Political Quarterly32 (3): 338-349.
34.
Mollenkopf, John H.1992. A phoenix in the ashes: The rise and fall of the Koch coalition in New York City politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
Nelson, Arthur C. , and James B. Duncan. 1995. Growth management principles & practices. Chicago: Planners Press.
36.
Pendall, Rolf , Ronald M. Wolanski, and Douglas McGovern. Forthcoming. Property rights in state legislatures: Rural-urban differences in support for state anti-takings bills. Forthcoming in Journal of Rural Studies.
37.
Peterson, Paul . 1981. City limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38.
Popper, Frank J.1984. Rural land use policies and rural poverty. Journal of the American Planning Association50: 326-334.
39.
Popper, Frank J.1988. Understanding American land use regulation since 1970: A revisionist interpretation. Journal of the American Planning Association54 (3): 291-301.
40.
Schneider, Mark . 1989. The competitive city: The political economy of suburbia. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
41.
Stone, Clarence N.1989. Regime politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
42.
Talen, Emily . 1996. Do plans get implemented? A review of evaluation in planning. Journal of Planning Literature10 (3): 248-259.
43.
Thomas, David A.1996. The illusory restraints and empty promises of new property protection laws. The Urban Lawyer28 (2): 223-261.
44.
Tiebout, Charles . 1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy64: 416-424.
