States can mandate that local governments develop and periodically review comprehensive physical development plans. California pioneered this required approach to community planning in 1927 when the state legislature statutorily required preparation and adoption of a general plan.

In subsequent years, California and other states have added “elements” that are required to be detailed within the basic plan document. General plan elements that various legislatures have ordained now include:

• Circulation.
• Land use.
• Housing.
• Conservation/open space.
• Climatic and seismic safety.
• Noise.

  Scenic highway.

Some states, including Arizona, even require that the plan be adopted by a citizen vote.

What’s the purpose? Adopting the above-required subordinate “studies” and documentation means there were new and proper standards in terms of planning for the many needs of both the residents and the business community. Zoning maps were battled out, drawn, and adopted. Circulation plans were devised. Safety needs (i.e., police, fire suppression, paramedic, storm drainage, flooding, earthquake/tornado/hurricane/wildfire preparedness) were addressed.

Disaster plans of all kinds were written based on the unique issues facing each local government. Park standards and protection of space gradually was worked out between residents, businesses, and land developers, and usually were adopted in some legal form mandating adherence to the physical development plan and its elements.

Results. Life became wonderful. As a resident or a local businessperson, all one had to do was consult the local jurisdiction’s general plan and its various specific elements to determine how great your local services were going to be and how economic and scenic differences of opinion would be worked out between parties. Thus, a press conference on general plan adoption would probably sound like this:

“Life is going to be great in our community. We’re planning for fire and paramedic responses of no more than seven minutes. Not to be outdone, the public safety element mandates that we plan for police to respond in less than three minutes. With our adopted standard of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents in the conservation/open space element of the general plan, there will be a major park in every neighborhood and commercial/industrial area.

“Traffic jams? That will never be a problem here because our circulation element says we are going to have a level of service that will never require sitting at traffic lights for more than a minute or two.

“Heavy rain storms and flooding? Not to worry. We will not have any such problems because the storm drainage collection system has been designed to meet federal pollution run-off standards as well as the demands of a 20-year storm. This community has planned to be a wonderful place. And it will be.”

What’s missing? But wait a minute, a casual observer might ask: Who’s going to pay for all this, and how? How close are we to attaining these planned service levels, and how are we going to afford to maintain them? Couldn’t this general plan and all its required elements add a great deal to the city’s already grossly underestimated and significantly underfunded infrastructure replacement program? Plus add to its well-known financial difficulties?

Pay for it? Oh, there is no requirement to have a financial element by which to implement the general plan.

Now what? State and local voted allowances and restrictions have either enabled or limited the general plan—or any plan—finances. Development impact fees are permitted, prohibited, or partially accepted, widely varying by state.

Property, sales, income, and other taxes also are allowed by some but either greatly limited or outright prohibited by other jurisdictions. Even fee and benefit charges can be both politically impractical or legally limited. Thus, state by state and local government by local government, the potential financial capabilities of ever implementing any element is dubious at best.

In actuality, the operative word for “plan” and “element” implementation is could. Not should or shall. Local staffs and their various specialist consultants can and will develop and adopt general plans and all their numerous elements, but they become targets, without capability to secure results.

General plans generate toxic discussions and disputes between ideologies, neighborhoods, businesses, residents, and other groups. But the basic point is that there simply is no revenue by which the normal lofty goals of the various elements could ever be reached. So the question—again—is now what?

Time for a new “required” element.It is time to consider and require a general plan financial element. To not do so merely perpetuates dreamy and lofty but financially unachievable goals—mandated or not. And yet another fault of “government” per se.

This new element would support the attainment of defined service levels in the other elements. A realistic price tag should be put on securing each element’s goals and standards. A progress analysis of how close the jurisdiction is to meeting the many standards, perhaps as a percentage of completion vis-a-vis the current percentage of general plan element build-out, would suffice. And other percentages over definitive times and populations also could work.

This financial element progress and analysis would require a level of realistic pragmatism. An open and frank discussion with the community about what service level can be attained through infrastructure investment and personnel additions, and then maintained, is vital. To not do so is grossly misleading relative to any realistic level of local government planning—legally mandated or optional.

More open, honest discussion with verified numbers is required before local governments are financially starved into disastrous levels of service. It’s time to require meaningful cost analysis; lofty goals, while uplifting, serve no one, especially communities that cannot count on them ever becoming a reality.