IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rjpaxx/v87y2021i1p11-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analyzing Action/Plan Consistency

Author

Listed:
  • Brian W. Ohm

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings An increasing number of laws throughout the United States require that local officials articulate the reasons for their decisions related to land use matters. These include the legal basis for the decision and the factual basis of the particular matter. Although there is not much research on the role of planning staff reports in the planning process, staff reports become part of the record and can provide legitimacy for a decision. In this study I summarize the legal requirements found in many states that certain local decisions must be consistent with a locally adopted comprehensive plan. I analyze how planning staff reports evaluate consistency. Many staff reports fail to provide decision makers with an analysis of how a proposed action relates to the policies in the plan.Takeaway for practice A comprehensive plan is more than a future land use map. Planning staff reports need to provide the framework for an analysis of how a proposed action relates to the community’s plan as a whole and give meaning to the concept of consistency. Staff reports should inform decision makers about the content of the plan, thereby reminding decision makers of the existence of the plan, and evaluate how the proposed action relates to the policies in the plan through a narrative that reinforces the value of planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian W. Ohm, 2021. "Analyzing Action/Plan Consistency," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 87(1), pages 11-20, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:87:y:2021:i:1:p:11-20
    DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2020.1785926
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01944363.2020.1785926
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01944363.2020.1785926?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:87:y:2021:i:1:p:11-20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rjpa20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.