Maine's Growth Management law provides an opportunity to examine public attitudes about state-mandated local comprehensive planning. A survey revealed an overall favorable public reaction, but important differences appeared among some subgroups. It was apparent that some socioeconomic characteristics offered the best predictors of support for local comprehensive planning, although the literature is not consistent on this issue. Attitudes on related issues such as environmental spending and highway development were only weakly linked to those on comprehensive planning. The results suggest directions for public policy development in states considering passage of growth management laws.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anonymous.1987. A Land Ethic for Maine. Maine Times April 10.
2.
Albrecht, D.E., G. Bultena, and E. Hoiberg.1986. Constituency of the anti-growth movement: A comparison of urban status groups. Urban Affairs Quarterly21:4.
3.
Astbury, C.1988. Bangor braces for major growth. Bangor Daily News Oct. 22-23:1, 3.
4.
Baldassare, M.1984. Predicting local concern about growth: The roots of citizen discontent. Journal of Urban Affairs6:39-49.
5.
Baldassare, M.1985. The suburban movement to limit growth: Reasons for support in Orange County. Policy Studies Review4:613-625.
6.
Baldassare, M., and W. Protash.1982. Growth controls, population growth and community satisfaction. American Sociological Review47:339-346.
7.
Bollens, S.A.1990. Constituencies for limitation and regionalism: Approaches to growth management. Urban Affairs Quarterly26:46-67.
8.
Bradley, T.1988a. Growth control can succeed, scholar says. Portland Press Herald Feb. 4:9-10.
Cummings, B.1987d. Land use proposals put on hold. Portland Press Herald Feb 19:2.
18.
Daniels, T.L., J.W. Keller, and M.B. Lapping.1988. The Small Town Planning Handbook. Chicago Illinois: The Planners Press.
19.
Deakin, E.1989. Growth controls and growth management: A summary and review of empirical research. In Understanding Growth Management , eds. D. J. Brower, D. R. Godschalk, and D. R. Porter.Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute.
20.
DeGrove, J.1984. Land, Growth and Politics. Chicago, Illinois: The Planner's Press.
21.
Dowall, D.1984. The Suburban Squeeze: Land Conversion and Regulation in the San Francisco Bay Area. Berkeley: University of California Press.
22.
Dictionary of Occupational Titles. 1977. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor.
23.
Dictionary of Occupational Titles. 1982. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor.
24.
Frieden, B.J.1979. The Environmental Protection Hustle. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
25.
Gale, D.1991. State growth management programs: A comparative analysis. Unpublished manuscript. Portland: Edmund S. Muskie Institute of Public Affairs, University of Southern Maine .
26.
Gottdiener, M., and M. Nieman.1981. Characteristics of support for local growth control. Urban Affairs Quarterly17:55-73.
27.
Harris, D.C.1988. Growth management reconsidered. Journal of Planning Literature3:466-482.
28.
Hart, S., R. Barringer, W. Bessey, A. Coburn, C. Colgan, A. Leighton, and P. Pagano.1990. Maine public policy survey. Portland: Graduate Program in Public Policy and Management and the Human Services Development Institute, University of Southern Maine.
29.
Healy, R.G., and J.S. Rosenberg.1979. Land Use and the States. Second edition. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.
30.
Heiman, M.1988. The Quiet Evolution: Power, Planning and Profits in New York State. New York: Praeger .
31.
Knaap, G.J.1987. Self-interest and voter support for Oregon's land use controls. Journal of the American Planning Association53:92-97.
32.
Lannin, J.1987. Battling growth in Blue Hill. Maine Sunday Telegram July 5:1A, 28A.
33.
Leonard, J.H.1983. Managing Oregon's Growth. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.
34.
Little, C.E.1974. The New Oregon Trail: An Account of the Passage of State Land Use Legislation in Oregon. Washington, DC : The Conservation Foundation.
35.
Lovell, J.1987. Resources council targets growth. Maine Sunday Telegram March 1:1A, 24A.
36.
Maine Revised Statutes Annotate.1988. Sections 4321-4354, Augusta, Maine.
37.
McGonigle, J.1989. Maine's Changing Face. Augusta : The Commission on Maine's Future.
38.
Medler, J., and A. Mushkatel.1979. Urban-rural class conflict in Oregon land use planning. Western Political Quarterly3:343-349.
39.
Nelson, A.C.1986. Using land markets to evaluate urban containment programs . Journal of the American Planning Association52:156-171.
40.
Plotkin, S.1987. Keep Out: The Struggle for Land Use ControlBerkeley: University of California Press .
41.
Popper, F.1981. The Politics of Land Use Reform. Madison : University of Wisconsin Press.
42.
Porter, D.R.1987. Growth Management: Keeping on Target?Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
43.
Protash, W., and M. Baldassare.1983. Growth policies and community status: A test and modification of Logan's Theory. Urban Affairs Quarterly18:397-412.
44.
Rudel, T.1984. The human ecology of rural land use planning. Rural Sociology49:491-504.
45.
Scott, R. W., D. J. Brower , and D. D. Miner, eds. 1975. Management and Control of Growth: Issues, Techniques, Problems, Trends. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
46.
Sinclair, S.M.1989. Growth management in the 1980s: A new consensus and a change of strategy. New England Journal of Public Policy5:21-47.
47.
Turkel, T.1986. Building boom overwhelms controls on development . Maine Sunday Telegram Aug. 24: 1A, 6A-17A.
48.
Turkel, T.1987a. Bethel's dilemma: Tourists or jobs. Maine Sunday Telegram Dec. 27:1A, 30A.
49.
Turkel, T.1987b. McKernan backs from land plan. Maine Sunday Telegram Feb. 8:1, 10.
50.
Turkel, T.1987c. State may get bigger role in local growth planning . Maine Sunday Telegram Oct. 4:1,10.
51.
Turkel, T.1988a. Land use proposals set stage for debate. Mame Sunday Telegram Jan 24:1.
52.
Turkel, T.1988b. Mainers support local growth limits. Maine Sunday Telegram Jan. 31:1-12A.
