Endnotes and acknowledgments

1 Stuart Meck, AICP, is Principal Investigator in the American Planning Association's Chicago Research Department for its Growing SmartSM project, a multiyear effort to draft the next generation of model planning and zoning legislation for the U.S. He has 27 years of experience in planning, much of it in Ohio. A Cleveland native, Meck is coauthor, with Professor Kenneth Pearlman, of the treatise, Ohio Planning and Zoning Law, 1998 Edition (Eagan, Minn.: West Group, 1998). Jason Wittenberg was an intern with the American Planning Association and is a city planner for the City of Minneapolis. He holds a Master of Urban Planning and Policy degree from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

2 9 Fla. Admin. Code (1998) §9J-5.003(140).

3 Robert W. Burchell, "Economic and Fiscal Costs (and Benefits) of Sprawl," Urban Lawyer 29, no. 2 (Spring 1997): 165-170. This article includes an excellent critical summary of the academic literature on sprawl, including a comparison between planned growth and sprawl development regarding public and private capital costs, land consumption, and overall fiscal impact. Id., 170-178. See also Robert H. Freilich and Bruce G. Peshoff, "The Social and Economic Costs of Sprawl," Urban Lawyer 29, no. 2 (Spring 1997): 183-198.

4 Ibid., 170.

5 Patricia Burgess and Tom Bier, with research assistance from Charles Post and Ivan Maric, Public Policy and 'Rural Sprawl': Lessons from Northeast Ohio (Cleveland: Cleveland State University, The Urban Center, Levin College of Urban Affairs, December 1997), 6.

6 Regarding planning and zoning, municipal governments in Ohio have the choice of following the Revised Code or, if they have adopted a charter that provides for or authorizes alternate requirements and procedures, following those alternate approaches, provided that they do not conflict with applicable general laws of the state.

7 Ohio Land Use Review Committee, Report of the Ohio Land Use Review Committee (Columbus: The Committee, June 1977).

8 Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force, Report (August 29, 1997),

9 An "urbanized area," according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is an area that: comprises one or more places ("central place") and the adjacent densely settled surrounding territory ("urban fringe") that together have a minimum of 50,000 persons. The urban fringe generally consists of contiguous territory having a density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. The urban fringe also includes outlying territory of such density if it was connected to the core of the contiguous area by road and is within 1 ½ road miles of that core, or within 5 road miles of the core, but separated by water, or other undevelopable territory. Other territory with a population of fewer than 1,000 people per square mile is included in the urban fringe if it eliminates an enclave or closes an indentation of the urbanized area.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Urbanized Areas of the United States and Puerto Rico , 1990 CPH-S-1-2, Section 2 of 2 (Washington, D.C. U.S. GPO., 1994), A-12. Urbanized areas are not necessarily coterminous with counties or with metropolitan areas. Because this analysis focuses on urbanization and its impacts, the relevant unit was chiefly urbanized areas. However, the analysis also takes into account trends among metropolitan areas, which are based on internal commuting patterns among counties.

10 County Business Patterns , a Census Bureau report, was not published for the year 1960, so 1959 was used instead as the beginning of the analysis period.

11What is probably happening in the Cleveland area is that, as development occurs in townships, the built densities are much lower than what would otherwise be experienced inside municipalities, where a full array of urban services, including sewers, are usually available. A study by Cleveland State University on development trends in Medina County pointed out that, since the 1970s, the average lot size for a new home has remained fairly constant at about 1.86 acres. There is, the study noted, substantial variation in lot size among the cities, villages, and townships, ranging from 10 acres (minimum) in Homer Township to an average of 0.35 acres in Wadsworth City. The study also pointed out that development has been located on soil conditions that may not be suitable for septic systems. Thomas Bier, et al., Development Trends in Medina County (Cleveland, Ohio: The Urban Center, Cleveland State University, February 20, 1998), 6, 9, Appendices C and D.

12 Density can be measured in a variety of ways. For the purposes of this comparative analysis, which is based on census data, density is measured in terms of persons per square mile (which includes both residential and nonresidential land). It can also be measured in terms of dwelling units per gross residential acre (including streets and other public improvements) or in terms of dwelling units per net residential acre (excluding streets and other public improvements).

13 Some portion of this loss is the result of returning marginal agricultural land to forest, although the loss was unlikely to occur in metropolitan counties. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency reports that, in 1940, 3.2 million acres of Ohio were forested, while in 1991, 7.86 million acres of forest land were identified in the state. Ohio Comparative Risk Project, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), Facts and Figures About Ohio's Environment (Columbus: OEPA, April 1996), 24.

14 Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Access Ohio: Reaching New Horizons in the 21st Century, Macro Phase (Columbus: ODOT, October 1993), 45.

15 Cuyahoga County Planning Commission, Review of Proposed Interstate 90 West (Lorain) Lane Addition and ODOT District 3 Major Investment Study (Cleveland: The Commission, November 18, 1996), 5.1.

16 Cuyahoga County Planning Commission, Land Use Impact Analysis for the ODOT District 12 Major Investment Study (Cleveland: The Commission, April 1998),

17 Burgess and Bier, op. cit., at 13-14.

18Ibid., 12-13.

19 Ohio Comparative Risk Project, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), Ohio State of the Environment Report (Columbus: OEPA, December 1995), 135.

20Portions of the discussion in this section appeared in different form in Chapter 4 of Ohio Planning and Zoning Law , 1998 Edition (Eagan, Minn.: West Group, 1998) by Stuart Meck and Kenneth Pearlman and are used by permission of the publisher.

21For example, local boards of health, which operate under a grant of power from the state, have authority to formulate and adopt rules regarding household sewage disposal pursuant to RC 3709.21. Such rules can affect the extent to which development is permitted without central sewer, which in turn affects lot size, which in turn affects overall development densities. See also Oh. Admin. Code Ch. 3701-29 (Household Sewage Disposal Systems).

22RC 901.54.

23State of Ohio, Office of the Governor, Exec. Order No. 98-03V (1-12-98).

24Telephone interview with Howard Wise, office of the Ohio Lieutenant Governor, August 26, 1998.

25Office of the Governor, George V. Voinovich, Communications Office, "Governor Voinovich Outlines State's New Farmland Protection Strategy (August 12, 1998),

26R.C. 929.05.

27A summary of the housing credit program and the qualified allocation plan appears at:

28See summary of the first-time homebuyer program at:

29Urban Center, Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University, Ohio's Enterprise Zone Program: The Next Phase--Entrepreneurial Community-Building, Final Program Evaluation Report (Cleveland, Ohio: The Center, April 22, 1998), 45-46.

30Ibid., 46.


32The evaluation looked at case studies of five enterprise zones across Ohio. One was in Lake County, just east of Cuyahoga County. The study pointed out that, because of existing development patterns in Greater Cleveland, "it is not uncommon for firms to both expand new and relocate existing businesses across county lines. More often than not, Lake County is the recipient of firms relocating from the the City of Cleveland [and] Cuyahoga County [,] both of which continue to loss [sic] population and jobs at a significant rate. A total of 2,354 actual new jobs were created, and 3,380 existing jobs retained by the zone since its establishment. Twenty-one relocation waiver requests have been made: 13 were approved, 6 rejected, and 2 withdrawn." Urban Center, Program Evaluation Report , 32.

33Ibid., 49-50. To this end, the Cleveland-based First Suburbs Consortium, which includes many of the inner-ring suburbs in Cuyahoga County, is now advocating the restriction of enterprise zones "to mature communities that need development" as part of a broader-based strategy to redirect major investment in fully developed communities. See First Suburbs Consortium "Real Growth for Ohio in the 21st Century: Position Statement" (Cleveland Heights: The Consortium, n.d.).

34R.C. 1525.11.

35Oh. Admin. Code §1525-01-07 (describing criteria).

36R.C. 6108.07 (water supply), R.C. 6111.44 (sewerage and sewerage treatment works).

37Ohio Comparative Risk Project, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), Recommendations to Reduce Environmental Risk in Ohio (Columbus: OEPA, July 1997), i.

38Ibid., 25.


40Ibid., 60.

41A summary of ODNR's coastal management program appears at:

42RC 1521.13; RC 1521.18.

43Board of County Commissioners of Clinton County v. Division of Mines and Reclamation, Nos. RC-97-006 to RC-97-008 (Reclamation Commission, 12-18-97), interpreting R.C. 1514.02(A)(9)(b).

44Stuart Meck and Kenneth Pearlman, Ohio Planning and Zoning Law , 1998 ed. (Eagan, Minn.: West Group, 1998), 651.

45The project advisory includes the following review criteria: (1) the immediate impact the project will have on productive agricultural and grazing land related to land acquisition; (2) indirect impact that will result in the loss of productive agricultural and grazing land from development related to the project; and (3) mitigation measures that could be implemented when alternative sites or locations are not feasible. Ohio Public Works Commission, "Farmland Preservation Review,"Advisory XII (May 1998).

46Ohio Public Works Commission, "Floodplain Management Requirements," Advisory XIII (May 1998).

47Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Access Ohio: Reaching New Horizons in the 21st Century, Macro Phase (Columbus: ODOT, October 1993); ODOT, Access Ohio: Reaching New Horizons for the 21st Century , Micro Phase (Columbus: ODOT, June 1995).

48ODOT, Access Ohio, Macro Phas e, 38. There is always the question of whether facility widening ever solves a congestion problem. Economist Anthony Downs called this conundrum the "triple convergence" phenomenon of equilibrium, which makes traffic congestion a ubiquitous problem that is next to impossible to solve. It means that, as a governmental unit completes a highway capacity project, the new capacity gets swamped in a short period of time because the streams converge: (1) people who traveled at earlier or later periods now use the highway at peak periods; (2) people traveling other modes, such as transit, now find it quicker to drive; and (3) those who found alternative routes earlier will now use the expanded capacity of the highway because it is faster. Anthony Downs, Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak-Hour Traffic Congestion (Cambridge, Mass.: Brookings Institution and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1992), 27-28. As widening increases capacity, albeit temporarily, and speed therefore increases as well, land is thus opened up for development because it is within convenient driving time of population concentrations and employment centers.


50The state department of transportation serves as the MPO for the areas of the state that are not urbanized.

51ODOT, Access Ohio, Macro Phase , 43.

52Ibid., Map 19 (Macro-Corridors and Hubs). Some who have traveled the I-71 corridor between Columbus and Cincinnati might persuasively argue that the pattern of urbanization has already begun to set in.

53The system for prioritizing major new highway projects is at: The system does not presently take into account environmental, land use, or farmland loss factors.

54ODOT, Access Ohio, Micro Phase , 131-137.

55The Oregon planning statutes appear in Ore. Rev. Stat., Ch. 197 (1996); the administrative rules appear in Ore. Admin. Rules, Ch. 660.

56The 19 state planning goals appear in Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals (Salem, Ore.: DLCD, 1995).

57See Ore. Admin. Rule §660-07-035 (March 1991) (Minimum residential density allocation for new construction).

58Oregon does permit the establishment of "exception areas" for development concentrations (e.g., rural residential and rural industrial development) in what would otherwise be exclusive agricultural or forest areas under very limited conditions. Ore. Admin. Rule, Div. 4 (March 1991). In addition, in the Portland area, some lands immediately adjacent to urban growth boundary have been designated as "urban reserves" to be considered for future urbanization if and when boundary is extended. Ore. Admin. Rule, Div. 21 ((November 1992).

59For a good assessment of the Oregon system, see Robert L. Liberty, "Oregon's Comprehensive Growth Management Program: An Implementation Review and Lessons for Other States," Environmental Law Reporter News and Analysis 22, No. 6 (June 1992): 10367-91. The discussion below is drawn from Mr. Liberty's article. See also Planning the Oregon Way: A Twenty Year Evaluation , Carl Abbott, Deborah Howe, and Sy Adler, eds. (Corvallis, Ore.: Oregon State University Press, 1994); and Arthur C. Nelson and Gerrit Knaap, The Regulated Landscape: Lessons on State Land Use Planning from Oregon (Cambridge, Mass: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1992).

60Nelson and Knaap, The Regulated Landscape , at 137.

61For a discussion of the passage of these acts, see John M. DeGrove with Deborah A. Miness, The New Frontier for Land Policy: Planning and Growth Management in the States (Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1992), Ch. 8.

62The statutes describing the Washington state program appear in Revised Code of Washington, §36.70A.010 et. seq. (1997); administrative rules appear at Wash. Admin. Code, Ch. 365-195.

63Rev. Code of Wash., §36.70A.030(14) (1997).

64State of Tennessee, 100th Gen'l Assembly, Senate Bill 3278 (passed 5-1-98, approved 5-19-98), § 3.

65Ibid., §5(b)(1), (2).

66Ibid., § 5(b)(3), (4).

67Ibid., § 6(a), (b).

68Ibid., §5(e)(1).

69Ibid., § 7(a)(1).

70Ibid., §12(c), (d).

71Ibid., §13(a)(1), (d)(1).

72Ibid., §11.

73The New Jersey State Planning Act appears at N.J. Stat .Ann., §52:18A-196 et seq. (1997).

74New Jersey State Planning Commission, Communities of Place: The New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan (Trenton: The Commission, June 12, 1992), 3. For a discussion of the adoption of the New Jersey Plan, see Peter A. Buchsbaum, "The New Jersey Experience," in Peter A. Buchsbaum and Larry J. Smith, eds., State and Regional Comprehensive Planning: Implementing New Methods for Growth Management (Chicago: American Bar Association Section of Urban, State, and Local Government Law, 1993), 176-90; John Epling, "The New Jersey State Planning Process: An Experiment in Intergovernmental Negotiations," in Jay M. Stein, ed., Growth Management: The Planning Challenge of the 1990's (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1993), 96-112.

75Authority for cross acceptance appears in N.J .Stat. Ann. §§52:18A-202 to 202.1 (1997 Supp.) The cross-acceptance rules appear in N.J .Admin. Code §17:32, Subchapters 3, 4, and 5.

76New Jersey State Planning Commission, The New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan: Reexamination Report and Preliminary Plan (Trenton, N.J.: The Commission, June 25, 1997), 44-58.

77See R.I. Gen Laws, tit. 45, ch. 22.2 (R.I. Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act) (1997).

78R.I. Gen Laws, tit. 45, 22.3 (State Comprehensive Plan Appeals Board).

79The 1992 Act, HB 1195, appears at 1992 Maryland Laws ch. 437.

80The "Smart Growth" legislation is S.B. 389 (1997 Regular Session).

81Bill Lambrecht, "Maryland's a Contender," Planning 63, No. 11 (November 1997): 12.

82The City of Hudson has enacted and successfully defended in federal court a growth management system, the first in Ohio. See Schenck v. City of Hudson , 114 F.3d 590 (6th Cir., Ohio, 1997), reversing and remanding 937 F. Supp. 679 (N.D. Ohio 1996), on remand, 997 F. Supp. 902 (1998).

83Ohio Comparative Risk Project, Ohio State of the Environment Report , 135.

84Ohio Comparative Risk Project, Recommendations to Reduce Environmental Risk in Ohio , 25.

85The municipal home rule provisions to the Ohio constitution were adopted in 1912. See generally Hoyt Landon Warner, Progressivism in Ohio, 1897-1917 (Columbus: The Ohio State University Press for the Ohio Historical Society, 1964); George D. Vaubel, Municipal Home Rule in Ohio (Buffalo, N.Y.: W. S. Hein, 1978) (reprint of series that appeared in the Ohio Northern University Law Review).

86 City of Middleburg Heights v Board of Bldg. Stds. , 65 Ohio St. 3d 510, 604 N.E. 2d 66 (1992) (municipality may adopt building code standards that are more stringent than, but do not conflict with, Ohio Basic Building Code).

87Model statutes for these two entities appear in American Planning Association (APA), Growing Smart SM Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change, Phase I Interim Edition (Chicago: APA, December 1996), 4-18 to 4-21.

88Harold F. Wise, History of State Planning--An Interpretive Commentary (Washington, D.C.: Council of State Planning Agencies, 1977), 11.

89Md. Code Ann., State Finance and Procurement, §§5-701 to 5-708 (1995). See also Pa. Stat. Ann. §§1049.2 to 1049.3 (1995) (establishment and powers and duties of state planning board).

90N.J.S.A. §52:18A-196 et seq . (1997 Supp).

91Ore. Rev. Stat. §197.303 et seq ., esp. §197.040 (1997).

92Del. Code Ann, Tit. 29, §9101 (Cabinet Committee on State Planning Issues) (1995).

93The coordinating committee proposed by Governor George V. Voinovich in a press release on the forthcoming state farmland protection strategy, described above, could form the basis for a cabinet coordinating committee. However, this working paper favors a permanent body that is established by means that are more formal than an executive order and that has a charge that is broader than integration of farmland protection in state agency activities.

94One reviewer of a draft of this working paper suggested the creation of an office of planning coordination, reporting to the Lieutenant Governor. Certainly this is an option as well, but is important that such an office operate with the direct authority of the governor.

95See American Planning Association, Growing Smart

SM Legislative Guidebook , Section 4-203.

96Procedures for citizen participation have not been described in this working paper.

97For examples of state goals in state plans, see American Planning Association, Growing Smart

SM Legislative Guidebook , 4-105 to 4-114. Other states with formal goals that are cited in the Guidebook include Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Vermont, and Washington.

98Ohio Comparative Risk Project, Ohio State of the Environment Report , 138.

99The Maryland legislation contains a list of specific state programs that are considered "growth-related." Md. Code Ann., Art. State Finance and Procurement, §5-7B-01(D) (1997).

100However, not all programs should be included, and a degree of flexibility is desired. For example, the Maryland program exempts programs that are necessary to protect public health and safety (a state grant to a community that has been flooded and needs immediate assistance) or that involve federal funds that cannot be constrained by state law.

101For an example of a program that provides incentive payments to encourage regional cooperation by local governments, see the Virginia Regional Competitiveness Act, Code of Virginia §15.2-1308 et seq. (1998).

102Md. Code Ann., §5-7B-03(G).

103The following areas are eligible for county designation under the Maryland statute: (1) areas with industrial zoning (areas with new industrial zoning after January 1, 1997, must be in a county-designated growth area and be served by a sewer system); (2) areas where the principal uses are for employment and which are served by, or are planned for, sewer services (areas zoned after January 1, 1997 must be in a county-designated growth area); (3) existing communities (prior to January 1, 1997) which are served by a sewer or water system and which have an average density of two or more units per acre; (3) "rural villages" designated in a county comprehensive plan as of July 1, 1998; and (4) other areas within county-designated growth areas that reflect a long-term policy for promoting an orderly expansion of growth and an efficient use of land and public services, are planned to be served by water and sewer services, and have a permitted average density of 3.5 or more units per acre for new residential development. Ibid., §5-7B-03.

104See Parris N. Glendening, Governor, State of Maryland, Executive Order 01.01.1998.04, "Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Policy" (January 23,1998).

105Maryland Office of Planning, "Smart Growth Fact Sheet; Smart Growth Areas Act: An Overview" (Baltimore: The Office, n.d.), 2.

106See Oh. Admin. Code, Ch. 3701-29 (Household Sewage Disposal Systems).

107For example, the Ohio Department of Development has published model zoning and subdivisions regulations that are used by local governments. See Ohio Department of Development, A Model Zoning Code , Terry Jacobs, editor (Columbus: The Department,1989); and Ohio Department of Development, Planning Division, Model Subdivision Regulations (Columbus: The Department, 1971).

108See generally Sarah Bohlen, Mary Beth Maguire, and Stuart Meck, "Getting Started: Initiating the Process of State Planning Law Reform," in Modernizing State Planning Statutes: The Growing SmartSM Working Papers, Vol. 1 , Planning Advisory Service Report Nos. 461/462 (Chicago: American Planning Association, March 1996), 171-183 (discussion of initiatives in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and West Virginia). Ohio could also do well to examine Kentucky's planning legislation, which is among the clearest and well-drafted in the U.S.

109One question such a re-examination should consider is the degree to which land-use regulation by local governments interferes with the ability of the private sector to construct or rehabilitate affordable housing. This is an issue that the 1977 Land Use Review Committee never confronted squarely.

Census documents consulted

U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of Agriculture: 1959. Vol. I, Final Report, Counties, Part 10, Ohio, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1961.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of Agriculture: 1992. Vol. I, Geographic Area Series, Part 35, Ohio, State and County Data, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1994.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Supplementary Reports, Urbanized Areas of the United States and Puerto Rico, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1993.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Population and Housing Characteristics, Ohio, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1991.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population, 1960, Vol. I, Characteristics of the Population, Part 37, Ohio. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1963.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population, 1970, Vol. I, Characteristics of the Population, Part I, United States Summary, Section 1, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1973.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population, 1970, Vol. I., Characteristics of the Population, Part 37, Ohio, Section 1, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1973.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population, 1990, Vol. I., Characteristics of the Population, Part 37, Ohio, Section 1, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C, 1992.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Estimates of the Population of States: Annual Time Series, July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1997. Accessed online at

U.S. Bureau of the Census. County Business Patterns, First Quarter 1959, Part 4B, East North Central States (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1961.


Thanks to the following people who provided helpful comments and suggestions (pro and con) on an initial draft of this document. Some of their comments appear in the working paper. Listing here does not necessarily imply an endorsement of this document, and organizations are listed for identification only.

Marc Abraham, New Ohio Institute
Constance Beaumont, National Trust for Historic Preservation
Keith Benjamin, First Suburbs Consortium
Tom Bier, Cleveland State University
Arthur Brooks, First Suburbs Consortium
Patricia Burgess, Cleveland State University
Len Calabrese, Cleveland Catholic Diocese
Patricia Carey, Regional Solutions
Edith Chase, Ohio Coastal Resources Management Project
Marc Conte, Ohio Sierra Club
Steve Dana, Citizens for Civic Renewal, Cincinnati
Joe Daubenmire, Medina County Extension
James Duane, OKI Regional Council of Governments
David Goss, Build Up Greater Cleveland
Corinne Gutjahr, Cincinnati League of Women Voters
William Habig, Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
Soren Hansen, Pennoni Engineering
Benjamin Hitchings, Triangle Council of Governments, North Carolina
Nancy Howell, Cleveland Museum of Natural History
Tracy Kulikowski, Portage County Regional Planning Commission
Larry Libby, Ohio State University
Howard Maier, Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency
Terry McCoy, Ohio League of Woman Voters
Sandra McKew, PKG Consultants
Members of Citizens for Civic Renewal, Cincinnati
Members of the Church in the City Land Use Task Force, Cleveland Catholic Diocese
Members of the Northeast Ohio Regional Alliance
Kenneth Montlack, Cleveland Heights City Council and First Suburbs Consortium
Denise Myers-Krug, University of Toledo
Lisa Nelson, Bowling Green State University
Ohio Planning Conference Board of Directors
Paul Oyaski, Mayor of the City of Euclid and First Suburbs Consortium
Charles Pattison, 1000 Friends of Florida
Judy Rawson, Shaker Heights City Council and First Suburbs Consortium
Kathleen Ruane, City of Cleveland Heights and First Suburbs Consortium
Cynthia Sibrel, Ohio Sierra Club
Vincent Squillace, Ohio Home Builders Association
Kristin Vessey, Bowling Green State University
William Whitlatch, Northeast Ohio Home Builders Coalition

[Wow! If you made it here, you are really interested in smart growth!]


Back to top

EcoCity Cleveland
3500 Lorain Avenue, Suite 301, Cleveland OH 44113
Cuyahoga Bioregion
(216) 961-5020
Copyright 2002-2003


Smart Growth Working Paper
Part I: Historical background
Part II: Overview of trends
Part III: State agencies' policies
Part IV: Land-use planning models
Part V: Smart growth for Ohio
Next steps

Back to main Smart Growth Agenda


go to home page

Related Links:









Partner Links