Laserfiche WebLink
<br />II. MANAGING GROWTH <br /> <br />OulG22 <br /> <br />Improving the ability to manage growth is critical, <br />even more important than the problems of informa- <br />tion and money. We know that the numbers and <br />timing of energy projects will change during planning <br />and construction, so we have to be able to respond <br />to that change. The response requires direction and <br />planning and managing by the leaders of the com- <br />munity to get the money and to use it wisely, <br /> <br />A. PROBLEMS OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT <br /> <br />Throughout the country more and more attention <br />is being given to "growth." How much growth can <br />a small town or county handle? How can they pay tor <br />it? Communities of some size, with experience in <br />planning and managing, with proie5siona~ staffs and <br />strong citizen support. are having great difficulty in <br />managing growth. And their growth rates are far <br />lower than those of communities impacted by energy <br />projects. <br />Managing growth is difficult for energy impacted <br />communities for a number of reasons: <br /> <br />First, responsibilities are divided among. many <br />levels of government. There is great confusion about <br />roles. Who's in charge? And who's involved? <br />Among those involved are cities, counties, school <br />districts, councils of governments, areawide and <br />sub.State districts. State agencies, Federal agencies <br />and energy companies. Within all of these there <br />may be separate ar'ld competing bureaus and offices. <br />There is, therefore, often no such thing as "the" <br />Federal or the State position. The problems are <br />further compounded when the project is in one <br />jurisdiction and the impacts are felt in another, or <br />when two units within an area compete rather than <br />cooperate. <br />The communities to be impacted by energy projects <br />are typically small and remote. The most extensive <br />survey we have was done in 1975 by the Denver <br />Federal Regional Council of the s\)( states \n Region <br />VII I - Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South <br />Dakota, Utah and WVOffi\ng.1 6 1"his survey found <br />131 communities expecting to be impacted. Of <br />these: <br />50 (38%) have less than 500 population <br />66 (51%1 have from 500 to 5,000 population <br /> <br />116189%) have less than 5,000 population <br /> <br />Only 15 (11%) have over 5,000 population <br />Of the 131 communities, 59 (45%) have less <br />than 1,500 persons and are more than 100 miles <br />from a metropolitan area. <br /> <br />Impacted communities typically have no professional <br />staffs. Of the 131 communities above: <br /> <br />1'2 (9%) have professional planners <br />8 16%) have full.time city engineers <br />4 (3%) have city managers <br />4 (3%) have other administratorsl6 <br /> <br />There are few formal systems for joint community/ <br />industry planning and management. Often, there <br />is a fear of a "company town" if cooperation is <br />too close. Industry often doesn't want to get in- <br />volved in local affairs. Some construcHon firms <br />feel that their only Concern is building the project, <br />not realizil19 that tne quatiW of H'fe in the com- <br />munity could affect their turnover, labor costs and <br />proiits. <br />Sub-State areawide districts are useful in some <br />places as planning agencies. Problems arise because <br />they are generally voluntary, have limited money <br />and staff, and have no authority for <br />implementation. <br />Few States have policies or plans for energy develop- <br />ment impacts. Responsibility is often divided <br />among many agencies. with little coordination of <br />effort. The Oil Shale Coordinator in the Colorado <br />Governor's Office is an exception to that rule. <br />States vary in their ability and desire to provide <br />either money or staff technical aid to communities. <br />Finally, our governmental system - for planning, <br />managing and financing - is not geared to handling <br />rapid and temporary problems such as the construc- <br />tion phase of energy projects in our communities. <br /> <br />The situation may be bad, but it is not hopeless. <br />Some communities have developed an ability to <br />manage gfowth, often after going through al\ the <br />problems caused by being unprepared. <br /> <br />r <br />I <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />B. GUIDELINES FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT <br /> <br />1) Determine your g.eneral goals.. What kind of a <br />community do you want when the boom has slowed <br />down? These goals can only be set by the community <br />as a whole, so citizen participation is required. How- <br />ever, don't overdo it so that citizens become weary <br />of the process. <br />2) Next, specific objectives and targets must be <br />set. ,I Adequate housing" is not specific. "Construc- <br />tion of 1,000 units by 1977, with at least one-third <br />of them rentals at no more than 20 per cent of average <br />industry wages" is specific. Objectives must be specific <br />enough that progress can be effectively monitored. <br />3) The most important activity you and every com- <br />munity ml,.lst do is to prepare a plan. This "Rapid <br />Growth Plan" or "Energy Impact Plan" has to define <br />what impacts you expect, and set up a program and <br /> <br />13 <br />