Menu

A century ago, Ohio was seen as a national leader when it came to land-use policy.

"But since then, relatively little has changed in the way governments are set up and the tools they can use to manage growth," said Jill Clark, program manager for the Exurban Change Project at Ohio State University. "We have a system that has not changed as fast as Ohio has." That has resulted in unmanaged growth in many areas of the state, posing challenges for these newly urbanizing communities.

"When Ohio originally formed as a state, we had cities and farmland, urban and rural areas," said Clark. "A distinction was made between them – cities and villages have home rule, but counties and townships can only do what they are authorized to do under state statute."

The inability of officials to respond to the urbanization of formerly rural areas can spell trouble for communities, Clark said. "Since zoning statutes aren't up to date, townships can't always manage growth in a way that is best for their communities," she said. "There's a strong desire out there in local government to be able to guide growth, but they don't have the tools they need to be able to do that in the most effective manner."

Larry Libby is the C. William Swank Professor of Rural-Urban Policy in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics. He and Clark said state lawmakers should consider revamping laws to give township and county officials more flexibility to respond to growth pressure at the rural-urban fringe.

Libby said state law needs to be improved in two areas. One would be a general law authorizing local officials to establish zoning and subdivision regulations and outlining how townships and counties could work together with cities and villages in issues of "greater than local concern. This 'enabling' law would specifically allow townships and counties to better manage growth and protect farmland," Libby said. "Right now, there's a difference of opinion on whether they can do that or not, and most officials feel they can't."

The other approach would give counties and townships specific tools they could use to help manage growth, Libby said. Such tools could include:

• Transfer of development rights. This would enable a developer to build in certain areas at a higher density than is currently permitted as long as they also purchase development rights of farmland in designated areas, which would permanently protect it.

• Assessment of impact fees. Often, new developments have homes that pay less in taxes than what is needed to cover additional local services. Local authorities could make up the difference if they had clear authority to levy impact fees to cover costs associated with roads, schools, parks, water and sewer lines, and other services required by development. Otherwise, those added costs must be paid by taxpayers already living in the area.. "Full cost development would add realism to the development process," according to Libby.

• Establishment of Agricultural Security Areas would allow farmers to voluntarily join with their communities to establish areas designated for agricultural use for a set amount of time. Landowners who do so would get certain benefits, such as tax reductions or a commitment from the local government for no development in the designated area.