U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

61–988 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–692 

LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE LIVABLE 

COMMUNITIES ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

EXAMINING THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT 

JUNE 9, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

( 

Available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate05sh.html 
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

EDWARD SILVERMAN, Staff Director 

WILLIAM D. DUHNKE, Republican Staff Director 

MITCH WARREN, Senior Policy Advisor 

BETH COOPER, Professional Staff Member 

DEVIN HARTLEY, Legislative Assistant 

MARGARET SMITH, FTA Detailee 

CHAD DAVIS, Republican Professional Staff Member 

SHANNON HINES, Republican Professional Staff Member 

DAWN RATLIFF, Chief Clerk 

LEVON BAGRAMIAN, Hearing Clerk 

SHELVIN SIMMONS, IT Director 

JIM CROWELL, Editor 

(II)
C O N T E N T S 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 2010 

Page 

Opening statement of Chairman Dodd .................................................................. 1 

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of: 

Senator Shelby 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 36 

Senator Menendez ............................................................................................ 4 

Senator Brown .................................................................................................. 5 

Senator Merkley ............................................................................................... 6 

Senator Schumer .............................................................................................. 7 

WITNESSES 

Jackie Nytes, City–County Councillor, City–County Council of Indianapolis 

and Marion County, Indiana, on behalf of the National League of Cities ...... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Joe McKinney, Executive Director, Land–of–Sky Regional Council, Asheville, 

North Carolina, on behalf of the National Association of Development Associations .................................................................................................................. 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Lyle D. Wray, Executive Director, Capital Region Council of Governments, 

Hartford, Connecticut, on behalf of the National Association of Regional 

Councils ................................................................................................................. 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Julia W. Gouge, President, Board of County Commissioners, Carroll County, 

Maryland, on behalf of the National Association of Counties .......................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Responses to written questions of: 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 70 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE RECORD

The Livable Communities Act (S. 1619) ................................................................ 71 

(III)

(1) 

LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE LIVABLE 

COMMUNITIES ACT 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD–538, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Christopher J. Dodd (Chairman of the 

Committee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER J. DODD 

Chairman DODD. The Committee will come to order. Let me welcome our witnesses and our guests to the Banking Committee this 

morning, and I welcome my colleague from New Jersey as well. I 

see Senator Menendez. 

This morning, we are pleased to have a hearing on a subject matter that I think is of growing interest in the Nation, local perspectives on livable communities, and I want to commend my colleagues. There are a number of Members on this Committee who 

have cosponsored the bill that we are proposing. We have had a 

good working relationship with the Administration. We have had 

a number of meetings, symposiums, and gatherings of one kind or 

another to talk about this perspective, and I am very grateful for 

the contributions that have been made by people who are interested in this, I think, very important subject matter. I particularly 

want to thank the Obama administration for early on understanding the concept and the idea behind livable communities and 

the importance of addressing the issue in a holistic fashion. One of 

the best gatherings we had occurred in this very room with representatives from the Departments of Housing, Energy, and Transportation to act in a coordinated fashion on how we might develop 

ideas to have intelligent, smart growth in our Nation. 

I am going to share a few opening comments, if I can, with you 

this morning. I will turn to my colleagues who are here—and I welcome my colleague from Ohio, Sherrod Brown, as well—and see if 

they have any opening comments they would like to make. Then 

we will turn to our witnesses and have a conversation with each 

other about this idea and your perspectives on how we can move 

this idea further along. So I thank all of you for joining us here 

today as we gather local perspectives on the Livable Community’s 

Act. 

This legislation provides funding for regions to plan future 

growth in a coordinated way that reduces congestion, generated 

good-paying jobs, creates and preserves affordable housing, meets 
2 

our environmental and energy goals, protects rural areas and green 

spaces, and revitalizes our main streets and urban centers and, 

further, makes our communities better places in which to live, to 

work, and, of course, most importantly, to raise our families. 

Creating livable communities is about giving our cities and towns 

the tools to plan their own futures, giving people more transportation and housing choices, and encouraging sustainable development to ensure a better future for our Nation as a whole. 

If we are going to address some of the long-term problems facing 

our Nation, we are going to have to break down our policy silos and 

approach these issues in a far more coordinated fashion than we 

have. For many years, Federal housing and transportation policies 

incentivized development further and further and further away 

from existing communities and small town main streets. Today, as 

a result, we have what I would describe as worsening traffic congestion, costing tens of billions of dollars in lost time and fuel, not 

to mention reduced productivity, lost time with families, and reduces quality of life. 

Traffic is not the only problem, however. Dispersed and uncoordinated development patterns require billions of dollars in new infrastructure costs at the same time that existing infrastructure is deteriorating at an alarming rate all across our Nation from lack of 

attention and, of course, funding as well at any level of government. And well over a million—in fact, closer to 2 million acres of 

open space and farmland are lost each year to the development of 

our metropolitan and rural fringes. Imagine that, almost 2 million 

acres a year being lost. 

One can argue that this has been true for years, so why should 

we act now, of course? Our Nation is facing a number of significant 

problems, including a deep economic recession, a housing foreclosure crisis that we are all painfully aware of on this Committee, 

the looming threat of climate change, and increasingly worrisome 

dependence on oil, deteriorating infrastructure, and, yes, of course, 

as we all know, worsening traffic congestion. 

Future demographic trends make our current patterns 

unsustainable. Our population is expected to grow by over 100 million people between now and 2050, and the first of the baby 

boomers are reaching retirement age, portending a huge demographic shift in the coming years. 

Let me just share with you some additional demographic issues. 

This is not what we fear may happen. This is what is going to happen. This is not what we would like to do. This is what we must 

address. 

The percentage of households with children under the age of 18 

has dropped from about half of all households in 1960 to about onethird today. Only one-quarter of households will have children 

under the age of 18 by the year 2050, so one-quarter. Again, just 

a dipping demographic point in terms of the needs. The people who 

live in these houses, what are their needs going to be? So you are 

down to one-quarter of households who have children under the 

age of 18. 

The portion of residents 65 years of age is projected to approximately double from 13 percent today to 20 percent of the population between now and 2050—and, again, I think a demographic 
3 

that demands different accommodations that we are going to have 

to address along the way. 

So we must address these challenges, as I said, in a coordinated 

way, and as Chairman of the Committee, I have sought to make 

this happen through the hearings and ideas that we have tried to 

bring to this Committee. 

Soon after he took office last year, I wrote President Obama urging him to improve the coordination between our Federal housing, 

community development, transportation, energy, and environmental policies. Last March, the Banking Committee hosted a symposium entitled ‘‘Creating Livable Communities: Housing and 

Transit Policy in the 21st Century.’’ A dozen housing, transit planning, and real estate experts from around our Nation participate 

in that symposium, and last June, this Committee held a hearing 

with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, HUD Secretary Shaun 

Donovan, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator 

Lisa Jackson. It was at this hearing that these three agencies announced their Partnership for Sustainable Communities, which recognizes the importance of working across traditional boundaries of 

the Federal Government to create more cohesive and collaborative 

policies. 

In August, I, along with a number of Members of this Committee, introduced the Livable Communities Act. The legislation 

will provide resources for comprehensive planning. The design of 

our communities is often seen as primarily a local issue, but the 

enduring consequences of how we lay out our communities are national in scope as well. New studies show that location-efficient 

homes are less likely to risk foreclosure, for instance. Less compact 

communities that force residents to rely solely on their cars increase the cost burden of transportation on households. And transportation is already the second largest expense for American households, way ahead of clothing, food, and health care. The American 

Public Transportation Association estimates that families with access to good public transportation can save an average of $9,000 

per year in transportation costs compared to households with no 

transit access. 

Our Livable Communities Act will also provide capital grants so 

that regions can compete to implement their plans. These grants 

can be tailored to meet the needs of diverse regions. One community can use the grants to develop brownfields in a postindustrial 

area. Another region can use the funds to develop and preserve 

mixed-income housing near transit. And yet another might create 

a workable, pedestrian-friendly main street or town center. 

By creating these livable communities, our neighborhoods and 

our communities can attract and retain young people, recruit new 

workers, put existing residents back to work, accommodate the 

needs of our older citizens, and see to it that they have the kind 

of retirement that they deserve with dignity and safety. 

So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and our 

colleagues, each of whom has experience in dealing with these 

issues. As I look down the panel of those who have gathered, my 

colleague from New York, my colleagues from New Jersey and Ohio 

and Oregon, you get a sense here of the kind of diversity that can 

be represented at our table here. We have talked to our rural mem-
4 

bers as well about ideas they have. We want this to be a national 

scope and plan idea that can make a difference for them. 

With that, let me turn to my colleagues to see if they would like 

to make any brief opening comments on the subject matter, because I know the demands of the time are such that you may not 

be able to spend as much time as I would like or that you would 

even like to this morning. So let me turn, if I can, to Senator 

Menendez, and I will go right down the line here with any of you 

here for a few opening comments, then introduce our witnesses, 

and hopefully you can stay as long as you can to listen to them as 

well. Bob. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity, and I will be in and out because we have Secretary Salazar 

at the Energy Committee talking about the spill. But I wanted to 

be here because I appreciate your work and leadership on this 

issue, which I have a great deal of interest in, going back a long 

time, in creating more livable communities. I believe it is legislation that can help jump-start our economy, reinvigorate the housing market, increase our energy security, and make the air that we 

breathe cleaner and our communities healthier. And I think that 

the bill would expand on the successes of community projects all 

over America, including my home State of New Jersey, where we 

have been working on transit villages, something that I helped create when I was in the House of Representatives, where we create, 

for example, communities in which high-speed, nonpolluting light 

rail lines are at the focus of centers that can then create a nexus 

to jobs, access to hospitals, access to cultural opportunities, and has 

spurred development along the entire rail line and taken a lot of 

cars off the road. And that is the type of successful community 

projects that have shown that livable communities can save Americans money while significantly improving the environment we live 

in and the quality of our lives. 

So whether we call it a livable city or smart growth or sustainable development, I think what people want, Mr. Chairman, is a 

community where they have the freedom to walk out their door, 

grab a bite to eat, run an errand; the freedom to hop on mass transit to commute to work or catch up with their friends and family, 

to see their favorite band or baseball team. What people want are 

development policies and transportation choices that get them out 

of bumper-to-bumper traffic and give them more time with their 

families, more productive time at work, but also the benefits, I 

think, go far beyond that, even. By giving people the choice to live 

in communities where they do not necessarily have to use their 

cars, traffic is reduced, it means the rate of asthma and other 

breathing ailments are reduced, and to reduce our energy consumption as well as our emissions. 

I think we can take lessons from across the country, and those 

lessons as well as helpful competition I think can accelerate this 

process. I know your bill does that to a large degree, establishing 

at HUD a department, an office to coordinate Federal policy on 

smart growth, to create competitive grants, to provide incentives 

for communities to compete to create truly sustainable commu-
5 

nities, and I certainly hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will move forward in a markup of the bill and an opportunity for us to create 

the Federal incentive to help communities move in a direction that 

can both fuel our economy, improve our energy security, and improve the quality of life. There are few pieces of legislation that get 

to do all of that. I think this does, and I commend you and look 

forward to working with you. 

Chairman DODD. Well, thank you very much to my colleague. 

Senator Brown. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for holding the hearing and for your leadership on livability issues. 

Earlier this spring, I was in Columbus, the capital city of my 

State, for the unveiling of a report by a public policy and grassroots organization called Greater Ohio, titled ‘‘Restoring Prosperity: 

Transforming Ohio’s Communities for the Next Economy.’’ The report outlined a number of critical smart growth and livability ideas 

that we are already working on, transitioning to a clean-energy 

economy, investing in infrastructure, capitalizing on home-grown 

talent rather than seeing so many young people leave our State. 

One of the key suggestions was taking steps to ensure that our 

communities are places where people want to live and to work. 

Communities in my State are making several of these important 

steps. They are embarking on regional planning strategies. They 

are promoting walkable communities or developing better land-use 

policies to protect our farmland. As Chairman Dodd suggested, 

they are initiating neighborhood revitalization programs in our 

older industrial cities. Whether it is brownfield development, 

whether it is investments in public transportation that spur transit-oriented economic development, these programs are vital, as we 

know, for any State. 

In Ohio, we have a number of cities that have shrunk dramatically in the last 50 or so years. In 1950, Cleveland had a population 

just under 1 million people. Today’s population in Cleveland as estimated in 2000 was under half a million and will likely have 

dropped significantly in large part because of foreclosure issues, 

perhaps as low as 400,000. Youngstown, with a population of 

170,000 in 1950, has shrunk to less than half its size where some 

estimates are 40 percent plus of properties in Youngstown are vacant. 

There are numerous cities around the country with thousands of 

vacant homes and empty neighborhoods. We know that is a problem in terms of the shrinking cities. That is why last year Senator 

Schumer and I introduced the Community Regeneration, Sustainability, and Innovation Act. It would help older cities that have experienced serious population declines from Buffalo to Birmingham 

and lots of cities in between to—as we think we know how to manage growth, we do not necessarily how to manage shrinkage, and 

that is something that this legislation that Senator Schumer and 

I have worked on will do. 

In Youngstown, Mayor Jay Williams has developed a comprehensive planning effort called Youngstown 2010 to create a smaller, 

greener, and cleaner city. I was in Youngstown last week and met 
6 

for the third time with members of the Mahoning Valley Organizing Collaborative, headed by Pastor Harrison, with Kirk Noden 

as its executive director, who have been tireless promoters of their 

city and thought through in a comprehensive way how to reduce 

the number of vacant properties and improve the quality of life in 

the Mahoning Valley. They know what empty neighborhoods and 

abandoned neighborhoods do in terms of crime, in terms of sucking 

up city resources. They know that Youngstown can once again attract a new population and new jobs to compete with cities like 

Portland and Salt Lake and Atlanta. We have seen that already, 

an incubator project in Youngstown, several small businesses have 

300 employees, average age 28, average wage $58,000. A company 

from San Francisco is moving to Youngstown, just announced recently. We are seeing that kind of turnaround in that city, but we 

obviously need outside help. 

We should ensure that older so-called ‘‘shrinking cities,’’ whether 

Gary, Indiana, or Detroit or Cleveland, have a place in this bill for 

innovative programs needed to address their unique set of challenges. I look forward to working with the Chairman on doing that. 

Chairman DODD. Senator Brown, thanks very, very much. I appreciate it. 

Senator Merkley. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and it is a 

pleasure to be here. 

Oregon set in motion an experiment in the 1970s where we put 

an urban growth boundary around each of our urban settings, and 

this was to confine the area in which sprawl—or confine sprawl 

and protect forestland and farmland. And that set the stage for a 

rethinking of how we designed our cities. 

While many cities had inner cores that were burning out and 

inner suburban areas that were going into poverty and creating 

kind of a doughnut effect around the urban core, the center of Oregon cities started to thrive with reinvestment, and then transportation and housing policy followed—transportation policy to try to 

diminish the commute time, and that meant light rail and now the 

addition of streetcars; then housing policy that would encourage 

people to live adjacent to industrial manufacturing areas or to live 

along the light rail in order to utilize it to get to work, creating 

what has now been termed the Intertwine, which is a network of 

trails and bike paths that go throughout the urban center so that 

people can have another alternative, and it has turned Portland 

and Eugene and some other cities into major, major biking centers. 

And all of this has worked to greatly diminish the commute times, 

to enhance the number of folks who choose to walk or to bike, and 

it has dramatically reduced the production of greenhouse gases. 

While many cities continue to produce more greenhouse gases 

per person, Portland has had a net decrease, not just in the total 

but the amount per person. And so there is a high corollary to 

quality of life and to quality of the environment that comes from 

smart city urban planning, and I certainly love this effort to focus 

on how housing, transportation, and environment are connected 

and should be connected through good planning. Welcome. 
7 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Schumer. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES E. SCHUMER 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

you for holding this hearing. I thank my colleagues, Senator Brown 

and I who have legislation, Senator Merkley for his creative ideas, 

Senator Menendez faced with similar problems we face in 

downstate New York and then some of the problems we face in upstate New York are similar to the ones Senator Brown mentioned 

in Youngstown. 

I also want to thank Secretaries Donovan, LaHood, and Jackson 

for their leadership in creating the Interagency Partnership for 

Sustainable Communities, which I believe will help communities 

cut through the red tape. 

I am going to abbreviate my statement and ask unanimous consent it be read in the record, but just point to one area where we 

need the help and why this is so important, and that is, Long Island, New York, America’s oldest suburb. I wrote to heads of the 

Interagency Partnership to ask them to visit Long Island to see 

firsthand how sustainability initiatives could help with housing, 

transportation, and water infrastructure needs. Long Island’s 

transportation and sewer infrastructures are aging and falling out 

of states of good repair. Many of them were built, as the suburb 

started growing in the 1950s and 1960s, 50 years ago. 

The aging housing stock places a large burden on residents saddled with rising utility costs. Most homes built before the mid1970s did not have any insulation at all because oil was so cheap, 

gas was so cheap. And the communities are built around policy 

that was designed to meet demographic needs of the U.S. in the 

mid-20th century. 

So it is about time we got down to business here in Congress to 

support better planning of our Nation’s communities. We need 

smart and future-focused coordination of housing, environmental, 

and transportation initiatives to provide communities like Long Island with the tools necessary to retain a young, viable population 

and revitalize their local economies. 

We have great education on Long Island, but a lot of the young 

people leave if there are no jobs and no recreational activities. Revitalizing our downtowns really helps keep the young people there. 

And Long Island communities, like so many in New York State and 

across the country, need a jump-start from the Federal Government to propel them into the small but growing universe of 21st 

century communities built on innovation. 

We all know that when key Federal resources are missing from 

the picture, smart growth and sustainability development projects 

stall and communities suffer. These towns and villages do not have 

the wherewithal on their own to get this done. They need help. 

The Livable Communities Act would create a competitive grant 

program—it is just what the doctor ordered—to help communities 

carefully coordinate every aspect of regional planning, from housing and transportation to environmental initiatives. The end result 

of this type of planning is long-term strengthening of overall infrastructure, economic sustainability that residents and businesses 
8 

will truly feel. But too many municipalities have struggled to work 

through many of the land-use planning and financial intricacies at 

the Federal level, too complicated for them to get through, too cumbersome, too bureaucratic. The Interagency Partnership creates a 

one-stop shop for local governments looking for guidance on sustainability planning, and I am confident this is the beginning of a 

very promising future trend, a trend which community development will no longer be piecemeal work but will instead incorporate 

multiple initiatives that bolster entire regions all working together. 

I am happy to report that the Interagency Partnership has indeed pledged to visit Long Island this summer to meet and work 

with local leaders on revitalization projects, and I look forward to 

working with everyone to see Long Island and other communities 

in New York prosper. And I want to thank my colleagues and again 

thank Chairman Dodd for this innovative and much needed legislation. 

Chairman DODD. Senator, thank you very, very much. I appreciate my colleagues’ participation. 

Now let me turn to my witnesses, if I can, this morning who are 

here. We thank all four of you for joining us. Let me introduce you 

briefly. 

Jackie Nytes is currently serving her third term on the Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana, City–County Council. Councillor 

Nytes has served as the president of the Indiana Economic Development Council and is currently the executive director of the 

Mapleton Fall Creek Development Corporation. She is testifying 

today on behalf of the National League of Cities, and we thank you 

for joining us. 

Joe McKinney has served in city, county, and regional government management since 1991. Since 2003, Mr. McKinney has 

served as the executive director of the Land-of-Sky Regional Council, which serves a four-county region in western North Carolina. 

He is testifying today on behalf of the National Association of Development Organizations. 

Lyle Wray is the executive director of the Capital Region Council 

of Governments based in Hartford, Connecticut. Dr. Wray has previously served as county administrator for Dakota County, Minnesota, and director of the Ventura County Civic Alliance. He is 

testifying today on behalf of the National Association of Regional 

Councils, and I thank my constituent for joining us. 

And, last, we have the Honorable Julia Gouge, who is currently 

in her fifth term as Carroll County, Maryland, commissioner, serving as the president of the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner 

Gouge has also served as mayor of Hampstead, Maryland, as president of the Maryland Association of Counties, and as a member of 

the Board of Directors of the National Association of Counties. She 

will be testifying today on behalf of the National Association of 

Counties, and we thank you as well for joining us. 

I will ask you to begin in the order that I have introduced you. 

Jackie, we will begin with you, if that is all right, with opening 

comments, and I will inform you that any documents or supporting 

material that you think is important for us to have, we will include 

it in the record. Consider it included, in fact. That goes for all of 

you this morning as well. 
9 

Try and keep your comments, if you can, down to that 5, 6, or 

7 minutes or so, so we can hear from all of you, and then we will 

turn to some questions. 

STATEMENT OF JACKIE NYTES, CITY–COUNTY COUNCILLOR, 

CITY–COUNTY COUNCIL OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION 

COUNTY, INDIANA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE 

OF CITIES 

Ms. NYTES. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Dodd and 

Members of the Committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to 

speak to you today on behalf of the National League of Cities and 

the thousands of locally elected municipal officials like myself who 

value the important partnership that our American cities have long 

shared with the Federal Government. We have accomplished so 

much together. The Livable Communities Act will ensure that we 

continue to do so in even better ways than before, despite the increasing demands on available resources. 

Across America, rapidly changing economies, demographic shifts, 

environmental pressures, and aging infrastructure keep us in local 

government awake at night. City governments and their local partners work hard to deliver the many programs developed and funded by Congress. We are immensely grateful for the opportunity 

those programs have given us to address the challenges inherent 

in sustaining and growing our old cities, new suburbs, and small 

towns. 

Reviewing the purposes of the Livable Communities Act, I am 

encouraged by the recognition that these many programs cannot be 

allowed to act as single instruments but, in fact, will achieve their 

greatest impact if they play as an orchestra providing coordinated 

and integrated support. From my own experience, I want to speak 

to the value of such united efforts to underscore the importance of 

the approach that is called for in the Livable Communities Act. 

In Indianapolis, we have a number of redevelopment efforts underway, each of them the product of extensive, community-driven 

planning and engagement. 

In the Binford Redevelopment and Growth area, referred to as 

BRAG, residents and area businesses originally joined together 

simply to fight blight and sprawl. They have since become a united 

voice to spearhead six issues: pedestrian access and connectivity, 

business development, crime reduction, increasing green space, sustainability, and the development of transit-driven opportunity. 

In the Mapleton Fall Creek area, where portions of this old 

neighborhood were 50 percent vacant and abandoned, a community-based development corporation expanded its focus from affordable housing to a vision of comprehensive community redevelopment where they understand that removing blight, creating green 

space, restoring commercial and retail services, as well as enhancing transportation options are all necessary to transform a neighborhood built in the 20th century for 21st century lifestyles. 

In the Martindale Brightwood community, long abandoned rail 

yards and former industrial sites are now being rescued and 

repurposed for urban agriculture, transit-oriented development, 

and the provision of new schools and recreational opportunities. 
10 

All these stories lead one to ask why, if cities are doing so much 

already with our Federal dollars, would we need the Livable Communities Act? 

We need it because we must encourage the shared sense of vision 

about the work to be done. The most sustainable growth must be 

nurtured from every possible angle. Cities cannot just fix houses or 

just build parks. They cannot just enhance mobility by either adding sidewalks or more transit options. Cities must do all of these 

things in concert, and we can only act in concert back home in our 

cities if the programs supporting our efforts share this holistic approach. 

Given the current and near-term fiscal environment, local governments are working hard to continue to identify ways to improve 

efficiency and streamline the delivery of services to lessen the impact of the downturn on the families living in our neighborhoods. 

The Livable Communities Act would help our cities achieve these 

goals by formalizing the links between the different Federal agencies that every city and town comes into contact with—facilitating 

the interdependency of programming that we have come to understand is critical. 

In Mapleton Fall Creek, they are building highly energy efficient 

homes and they are retrofitting 90-year-old homes to meet the 

highest current energy standards, but trying to help the financial 

industry appreciate what these energy savings can mean to the financial capacity of a first-time home buyer is still a challenge. 

In BRAG, developing that new transit stop means that families 

can afford to stay in their homes in that area even if the jobs have 

moved elsewhere because the decreasing costs of transportation 

and increased access give them more affordable options. 

In Martindale Brightwood, the resurgence of community gardens 

and schools that value walking and riding over automobiles allow 

that community to tackle a frightening trend in the younger populations of our inner city—childhood obesity. 

This can all happen when we focus the resources of community 

development programs such as the Community Development Block 

Grant Program, the transit and other housing programs, the energy efficiency programs, the finance and mortgage regulators, and 

those who help us fund our infrastructure—all on the same prize: 

healthy, livable communities. 

I commend Senator Dodd and the other sponsors of this legislation for seeking input from the National League of Cities and other 

local government groups from the very beginning, and I urge this 

Congress to continue your role as a great partner for our American 

cities. We still have a lot of work to do. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very, very much. I appreciate that. 

Mr. McKinney, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JOE MCKINNEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

LAND–OF–SKY REGIONAL COUNCIL, ASHEVILLE, NORTH 

CAROLINA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATIONS 

Mr. MCKINNEY. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Dodd and 

Members of the Committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today and share our region’s perspective on the 
11 

Livable Communities Act. Again, my name is Joe McKinney and I 

am the Executive Director of the Land-of-Sky Regional Council 

headquartered in Asheville, North Carolina. I also serve on the 

Board of Directors of the National Association of Development Organizations. 

Mr. Chairman, NADO fully supports the principles set forth in 

the Livable Communities Act and remains deeply committed toward maintaining and enhancing key aspects of the legislation. 

First, we strongly urge the legislation reserve no less than 20 

percent of the regional planning and program implementation resources for small metropolitan and rural areas. 

Second, retain the bill’s focus on incentivizing regional development strategies that are locally developed and locally controlled on 

a voluntary basis, absent any Federal mandates. 

Third, solidify and maintain the strong ownership role envisioned 

for local governments and the valuable partnership role outlined 

for regional councils in coordinating sustainable development, planning, and implementation activities. 

The Land-of-Sky Regional Council serves as administrator and 

provider of a number of transportation, economic development, energy efficiency, and environmental programs that our local governments have identified as critical for sustaining quality of life and 

economic opportunity in our four-county region. Despite being a 

predominately rural area, our local officials, in partnership with 

other businesses and community and civic leaders, have already 

begun the process that is focused on sustaining our community’s 

assets while providing economic opportunities for our residents. I 

would like to briefly describe a few of those initiatives. 

First, as an Economic Development Administration designated 

Economic Development District, we have developed a comprehensive economic development strategy for our region that has helped 

connect our area’s jobs and our job creation strategies with fundamental principles for sustainable development. This was a process 

that our local leaders initiated in 2007. This process has led to a 

partnership between our 19 local governments and the region’s 

Chamber of Commerce, private foundations, and nonprofits to 

launch the Western North Carolina Livable Communities Initiative, which combines our region’s economic development strategies 

with the six livability principles outlined. 

Second, for over 18 years, our organization has administered a 

Waste Reduction Partners Program which uses highly experienced 

volunteer and retired engineers and scientists to provide our region’s businesses and industries with waste, water, and energy reduction assessments and technical assistance. Since that time, this 

program has helped reduce the participants’ utility costs by more 

than $23 million and greenhouse gas emissions by more than 

125,000 tons. The program has also helped conserve more than 600 

million gallons of water and reduced the amount of solid waste in 

our landfills by 200,000 tons. While the program embraces the essential principles of sustainability, it is firmly rooted in enhancing 

the economic competitiveness of our area businesses and industries. 

Third, in 2002, the Land-of-Sky Regional Council became one of 

the first organizations in a rural area to address brownfield rede-
12 

velopment on a regional basis. In the 8 years our organization has 

partnered with the EPA, we have helped turn more than 20 abandoned properties with environmental impairment into vibrant 

working and productive properties. As a mountainous community 

with limited developable areas, it is critical that we are able to 

reuse and repurpose land to generate and spur economic activity. 

Finally, our organization serves as the primary planning agency 

for coordinating transportation investments in our metropolitan 

and rural communities. In this capacity, we are tasked with coordinating a variety of projects that not only enhance the capacity of 

our existing transportation network, but also those that enhance 

alternative transportation options and those that allow our region 

to become more self-sustaining with regard to fuel production and 

consumption. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Livable Communities Act would 

provide our region with the resources needed to fully integrate and 

implement these individual strategies and programs into a larger, 

cohesive vision for our area of Western North Carolina and take 

the next steps necessary to ensure our vision for sustainability and 

economically competitive region can become a reality. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify and I welcome 

any questions. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much. I appreciate it very 

much. 

Lyle, it is good to see you. I welcome you to the Committee, and 

you were very helpful, of course, a few weeks ago when we had our 

meetings in Connecticut with the Secretary of Transportation, so 

we welcome you to the Committee this morning. 

STATEMENT OF LYLE D. WRAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CAPITAL REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, HARTFORD, 

CONNECTICUT, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL COUNCILS 

Mr. WRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Chairman 

Dodd and Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for the 

opportunity today to speak in favor of the Livable Communities 

Act. My name is Lyle Wray. I serve as the Executive Director of 

the Capital Region Council of Governments serving the Metropolitan Hartford area. We are about 800,000 people. I also serve on the 

Executive Director’s Committee of the National Association of Regional Councils and I am speaking on their behalf today. 

Today, I want to address the need for the Livable Communities 

Act from the regional planning perspective, something we do day 

in and day out, and I want to use my own region as an example 

of some of the things we are already doing and how the Livable 

Communities Act would help us to make a lot more progress going 

into the future. 

The National Association of Regional Councils is the national organization representing Regional Planning Organizations, urban 

and rural, large and small, throughout the country. The National 

Association and its members, like CRCOG, is governed by local 

elected officials and provides advocacy, technical assistance, and 

training to advance the capacity of these Regional Planning Organizations to meet the kinds of needs that have been discussed so 
13 

far this morning. The entire U.S. population is covered by a regional council under one name or another. We call them Metropolitan Planning Organizations or Economic Development Districts or 

Planning Development Councils. 

More than ever, Regional Planning Organizations, both in rural 

and urban areas, are being called on as ways to help local governments save money, time, and achieving outcomes through working 

together with resources and developing integrated solutions to 

some of our most complex challenges. 

The Act would provide even more opportunities and incentives 

for regional collaboration to interweave strategic regional transportation, economic, and environmental, as well as land use, housing, 

and other aspects through a locally created and approved comprehensive regional plan. These plans provide the framework by 

which local governments, businesses, community groups, and citizens working through a regional council can determine the needs 

of communities and desires as well as guiding the allocation of collective resources and capabilities. The Act would support the ways 

we already nurture, enhance, and protect our regions and communities of all sizes and different make-ups to ensure that our unique 

characteristics, histories, and offerings and preserved and expanded for future generations. 

So without providing mandates or other requirements, the Act 

would give us much needed competitive funding to move forward 

on work that we are trying to do to make communities better 

places to live, work, and play, and to raise families. It would assist 

in fostering community-driven comprehensive planning and investments that are cost effective and efficient, reduce congestion, generate good-paying jobs, meet environmental and energy goals, and 

provide affordable housing, protect rural areas and green space, 

and revitalize main streets and urban centers. 

Let me just turn for a moment to the Metropolitan Hartford Region, I think, and give some concrete examples of what might be 

done with this. As you know, Chairman Dodd, the Metropolitan 

Hartford Region is at the crossroads of the Interstates of 84 and 

91 and we have almost 800,000 people, and in that region, half the 

freeway congestion is on one stretch of I–84 west of downtown 

Hartford, 50 percent of the congestion, which has been a sort of 

burr under the saddle of local elected officials for many years. 

Ten years ago, a very comprehensive planning process looked at 

various options. Do you build rail, do you expand the freeway, or 

do you do a bus rapid transit? And after a very long process, we 

came up with a bus rapid transit option of 9.4 miles going from 

Hartford to New Britain Southwest. What is interesting about that, 

it joins two areas of redevelopment, the West End of downtown 

Hartford and downtown New Britain, with a series of stations 

along the way, all of which need redevelopment. And so this is a 

classic example of work we have begun working on that would 

allow us to leverage the major investments that were potentially 

coming. We are on the threshold now of getting $1.5 billion of support for 

the commuter rail work, which you have been doing very strongly, 

from Springfield to New Haven and New York, as well as the bus 

rapid transit investment. But linking that investment to better op-
14 

portunities for housing, jobs, and environmental improvement, I 

think, is going to be what the Livable Communities Act allows us 

to do. 

We did a study with the Regional Planning Association of New 

York that showed that by intensifying transit use in our region, we 

could save 5 to 20 percent of the carbon footprint in the region 

without any major dislocation, which is an amazing achievement 

that would be doable, and would help us to provide housing alternatives so we would stop the outflow of 24- to 35-year-olds that we 

have been experiencing since the 1990s, a huge outflow of young 

professional talent, and we believe that transit-oriented development would be one of the ways to help stem that tide. 

Increasingly, more Americans, in fact, are choosing to live in 

these types of areas, transit oriented development, and your findings in your Act talked about somewhere around 30 percent of the 

people would choose housing in the transit oriented development 

type. Right now, 75 percent of Americans would actually support 

public transit and housing around them, according to a study in 

2007 by the National Association of Realtors. So there is a need 

here for helping to provide what people want that is currently 

being unmet. 

As I begin to conclude my testimony, I wanted to hark back to 

something that was done in Hartford in 1957. I was on a tricycle 

at the time, but it was still important. Lewis Mumford, a noted 

urban expert, keynoted a major conference in Hartford barely a 

year after the Interstate Highway Act was passed and he had a 

very strong presentation where he cautioned that unless you are 

very careful, if you just build highways without integrating that 

with land use, bad things will happen to you. So in 1957, he said, 

be very careful that you don’t produce a lot of sprawl and kill the 

core cities. Now, this is a matter of record in 1957 at a major conference. 

This Act today, I think, is partly a restitution of some of the challenges that have come about by not integrating land use and environmental planning with highway planning and transit planning 

that we talked about in 1957. So it is actually sort of back to the 

future in terms of that comment, but it really, I think, speaks to 

the kind of challenges we have. 

So my Regional Planning Organization and others around the 

country have the mechanisms, the capacity, and the willingness to 

move forward to help implement the Livable Communities Act provisions and we look forward to the opportunity to do that, and I 

thank you today for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Act 

on behalf of the National Association of Regional Councils. Thank 

you, Chairman Dodd, for all your work. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much, Doctor. I appreciate it 

very much. 

Ms. Gouge, you are our final hitter here. You have actually been 

elected a mayor, too, so you know what it is like to go through that 

election night, so we welcome you. 
15 

STATEMENT OF JULIA W. GOUGE, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF 

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND, 

ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 

Ms. GOUGE. That is right. I do. And Chairman Dodd, I appreciate 

very much the opportunity to be here, and to the Members of the 

Committee. I am Julia Gouge, President of the Carroll County 

Board of Commissioners, member of the National Association of 

Counties Board of Directors Environment, Energy, and Land Use 

Steering Committee and the Rural Action Caucus. And we do 

thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on the Livable 

Communities bill, S. 1619, and it is my privilege to represent NACo 

today. 

NACo is the only national organization representing America’s 

3,068 counties, supports the Livable Communities Act to provide 

incentive grants to local areas for regional planning around housing, transportation, environment, energy, land use, and health initiatives. Last year, NACo passed a resolution supporting your legislation. 

Rural, suburban, and urban counties have been pursuing local 

strategies to create livable communities and implement sustainable 

development for decades. NACo has worked to support our members in achieving sustainable development for more than 15 years 

through assistance on issues including smart growth and planning, 

sustainable economic development, and business retention. Priorities now include clean energy development and disaster recovery. 

In 2007, NACo began the Green Government Initiative, providing 

comprehensive resources for local governments on all things green. 

Planning for sustainable communities is, by nature, a regional effort. Whether individually with neighboring jurisdictions or 

through Regional Councils, counties have the primary role in planning and economic development decisions impacting and determining growth, development, and livability. Many rural and 

midsize counties would like to begin sustainable planning and development but lack the resources to do so. The grants would be 

available to meet the needs of the counties to begin the process for 

sustainable development or for implementation, which is why this 

legislation is so very important. 

Carroll County, Maryland, has a population of 175,000. We have 

created three LEED certified green buildings which are oriented for 

site optimum lighting and solar control, extensive stormwater management, geothermal systems, and the use of high recycled content 

materials. To reduce our carbon footprint, we invested in the purchase of hybrid cars for our fleet as well as hybrid vans for our 

transportation system within Carroll County. 

Carroll County also participates in the Energy Management Initiative provided through partnership with the Baltimore Metropolitan Council, or the BMC. In fiscal year 2009, Carroll County estimated an electricity savings from BG&E of $900,000. We are an active participant on the Regional Sustainable Council of the BMC, 

promoting coordinated policies amongst regional districts and jurisdictions to adopt alternative energy and sustainable plans. 

To preserve our rural history, we implemented an installment 

purchase plan for farm preservation, and this allows us to purchase 

development rights by leveraging our money so more land can be 
16 

purchased at today’s prices. To date, we have placed over 60,000 

acres into permanent preservation on our farms and our goal is 

100,000 acres, which is one-third of our county. 

NACo continues to believe sustainability should be voluntary and 

encouraged through a Federal grant program rewarding regions 

and communities undertaking sustainable programs. We do not believe sustainability should be a condition for receiving housing, 

transportation, and other traditional sources of Federal funding. 

NACo believes all communities should be eligible for the program 

and we support funds being set aside for a subcategory of all rural 

areas. Rural communities represent the majority of the Nation’s 

land mass and most counties are rural by population. In fact, 2,835 

counties, over 90 percent, have populations below 200,000, many 

below 100,000, and many below 50,000. 

Due to the difficult times of our economy, it is more important 

than ever that counties have the support of neighboring jurisdictions as well as State and Federal resources. Efforts at local and 

regional planning are hindered when Federal funds are not granted 

directly to local governments. NACo appreciates that the bill allows 

counties to receive the funding directly, and I think that is most 

important. 

And so today, I do thank you for the opportunity to testify. We 

appreciate the opportunity, Chairman Dodd, and look forward to 

working with you. 

Chairman DODD. Well, thank you very, very much. Your timing 

of your testimony was perfect, because my friend from Montana 

has arrived and I could see his head jump up as you started talking about development rights and preserving farmland in rural 

areas. No one defends rural areas better than the Senator from 

Montana and understands where the future may be. Montana is in 

the lucky position of being able to manage this better than some 

of our other States did who didn’t appreciate what was going on 

years ago. 

Ms. GOUGE. That is good. 

Chairman DODD. I am going to ask to put in the record, by the 

way, we have some 200 local and national organizations have endorsed this bill, which is pretty stunning, considering we are almost really in the early stages of this, in the next few months, and 

they run the gamut, you might imagine. I won’t read the list, obviously, but I am going to ask consent that it be included in the 

record so we get some sense of the kind of national support this 

legislation has been able to gather. 

Chairman DODD. I am going to take a few minutes on some questions and then I will turn to my colleague from Montana. 

Let me first of all raise the issue, because all four of you here 

represent public entities, in a sense, cities and counties and regional bodies around the country, and there is a cost obviously associated with this. We are talking about planning grants, then we 

are talking about real money to come in to actually provide assistance once the communities have made decisions to move forward. 

But I think we need to also—several of you mentioned this, and 

I think it needs emphasizing—the kind of economic development 

from a private sector perspective, I think is going to be an important consideration here as we look down the road, the kind of cost 
17 

savings involved, as well, being able to reduce, if the numbers I 

have been given are accurate, that you can actually reduce the cost 

of an average family’s transportation cost by $9,000, that is not insignificant on a yearly basis occurring. 

And to have economic development and business advantages associated with sustainable development, I don’t think we have been 

as—we haven’t taken as much time to emphasize the importance 

of that aspect of this and I wonder if you might. Maybe we will 

begin with you, Dr. Wray, if you would talk about that, because I 

think that is a very critical component in all of this. 

I mentioned earlier home values, for instance. In North Carolina, 

in Charlotte, when they put a light rail system in, the values of 

real estate along that light rail system increased tremendously. 

Contrary to what we have grown up to think, if you lived near the 

railroad tracks, property values went down. We are living in a very 

different era today. Actually, that is a desirable place to be, and so 

there is that advantage from a business perspective. 

But I wonder if you might just comment on the economic value 

to this beyond the cost associated, which is obviously going to be 

a concern, and legitimately so, of my colleagues. What do I tell 

them about economic development and business growth as a result 

of livable communities? 

Mr. WRAY. Mr. Chairman, I think that is perhaps the unsung 

story here, which is I will give you an example. In the Metropolitan 

Hartford area, we are in the middle of combining sewer overflow 

separation, not a very sexy topic, but basically, by doing green infrastructure, we could probably save $500 million by having less 

water go into the sewer system and having to scale it down. So by 

having things like permeable pavements and holding ponds and 

rain gardens and other kinds of things. So development costs related to things like sewer construction could be cut perhaps by a 

third or a half by using these kind of sustainable models. So that 

is one very simple example. 

The second, as mentioned before in terms of buildings, LEED 

certified buildings and others that reduce energy consumption for 

businesses have a way of dramatically reducing the cost of operating. 

The third aspect, though, is the employee cost, getting people to 

and from the office and the inefficiencies of people stuck in traffic 

for a half-an-hour or an hour on either end of the day, walking to 

work or being able to take a break and having employees arrive in 

a less frazzled state. It is kind of hard to measure. But just the 

very dimensions of employees as participating in economic growth 

is very important. 

And then the last but not least, I think, Senator, one of the 

things that I think we are seeing around the country is that sustainability is becoming an industry in itself. Some of the major industries in Connecticut, United Technologies and others, are in this 

as a business. So there is a sort of direct aspect to this in terms 

of energy management systems, fuel cell alternatives, and other 

kinds of aspects, alternative transportation, where sustainability is 

actually a business in itself. 

So this is really kind of a very multifaceted set of savings, but 

one is you can save perhaps a third or a half on some infrastruc-
18 

ture. You can reduce electric consumption. You can have more 

available convenient workforces. And then the actual aspect of sustainability is a business in itself, that the actual content of energy 

management systems and other kinds of things becomes a major 

employer. 

Chairman DODD. Does anyone else want to comment on this at 

all? 

Mr. MCKINNEY. Sure. I will just give a different perspective, and 

that would be that coming from a rural mountainous community in 

North Carolina that is heavily dependent on tourism, the economic 

development focus of our land use decisions are primarily to continue that sustainability, and having the good fortune to be in 

Montana, I am sure their economic development strategy is the 

same, and that is we have got to have our natural assets to continue to attract the tourism. We have got to maintain from an environmental standpoint good air quality. There is not going to be a 

lot of economic development in my region if there is nothing—the 

visibility is limited to see the beautiful mountains. 

So the land use decisions that our local governments make a lot 

of times have a direct impact on our economic development from 

a tourism standpoint, and so this bill, I think, incorporates many 

of those planning activities that we are already doing in support 

of the economic development in my region. 

Chairman DODD. Yes, Ms. Nytes? 

Ms. NYTES. Yes, Senator. One of the things in this bill that I 

think is particularly valuable in this regard are the references to 

some research that is authorized in the bill in which there will be 

attempts made to further document the actual value of the location 

efficiency and the transportation efficiency, the mortgage efficiency, 

if you will. Those are factors that we find sometimes the rest of the 

business community or the development community and some of 

the local government officials still are not educated enough about. 

And the language in this bill that calls forth for some additional 

research and reporting on those factors, I think will go a long way 

in promoting good decision making at the local level about sustainable communities. A lot of times, I think the local government officials are hesitant to make some of the tough calls that need to be 

made about encouraging this kind of development because they 

don’t have enough information to back them up. This bill will assist 

in that fashion, as well. 

Chairman DODD. And, Ms. Gouge, what are your thoughts, representing a rural county in Maryland, of this? 

Ms. GOUGE. Well, one of the things that we have been doing in 

Carroll County since the mid-1960s is our master plan—— 

Chairman DODD. Is that microphone on? 

Ms. GOUGE. Is it OK? 

Chairman DODD. Yes. 

Ms. GOUGE. One of the things we have been doing in Carroll 

County since the mid-1960s is our master plan, where we had 

planned to put all of our growth in and around our eight municipalities. That has worked very well, because we really wanted to 

put our growth where our services were, police, garbage pick-up, 

water, sewer, that type of thing, and it has worked very well, but 
19 

at the same time, we are now facing, as these towns grow, they 

need help, as well, with many of this type of planning. 

We as a county work with them, but at the same time, they need 

to do a lot of these things to promote within the economic development. We are seeing a lot of streets on our cities right now. They 

are fairly small, but a lot of them are seeing a lot of closed doors 

for economic development. So there are a number of things that 

could really help something like this. 

When we look at other counties across the Nation, and I have 

talked to a lot of people at our national meetings, they are small 

counties and they do not have the people to do things. We have a 

planner, an economic development person, someone for recreation, 

and that type of thing, someone for tourism. But you take a small 

county in the Midwest or in the South, wherever, and even some 

counties in Maryland, they have one person who does all four of 

those jobs. So, consequently, they don’t have the staff to do the 

work. They don’t have the ability to do the research. And if we 

have something like this bill that is going to give them equal opportunity to apply for some of these grant monies, it is going to 

make all the difference in the world. 

Chairman DODD. Well, very good. 

Let me ask you one last question. I see my good friend and colleague from Virginia has joined us, as well. I thank Senator Warner for coming this morning. 

We have had a tremendously positive response to the legislation 

from all over the country, from diverse communities, small and 

large, and you have offered your testimony this morning to that effect. One of the commonalities among responses has been the frustration at the barriers that exist in the type of sustainable, livable 

planning, and you have just highlighted that, Ms. Gouge, with your 

comments. 

I wonder if you could just describe some of these additional obstacles that you see. Obviously, personnel, the resource capacity in 

smaller communities and counties, obviously the pressures that everyone is facing today economically. And so we want to make good 

decisions. We want to make sound planning decisions for our communities. Obviously, cost is a barrier. But are there other factors 

that contribute to this, as well, that we should be aware of? 

Doctor, do you want to share some thoughts? 

Mr. WRAY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think that is a critical 

question. The first, I would suggest, might be very close to this 

room, which is silo funding. We get funding in silos. Your efforts 

to get the Administration to work on an interagency fashion is 

most welcome, but we need to do the same thing at the local level. 

Chairman DODD. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. WRAY. So we get funding that comes in a slot so we can get 

our State transportation program approved and we get down the 

slot. One of the things we need to do, and this is hard work, and 

a barrier, is to work across. But we don’t have in our State a working group at the same level that you have at the Washington level. 

And then the question is, how do we actually get those silos to integrate so that you do transportation that makes sense for economic 

development that makes sense for housing that makes sense for 

the environment. 
20 

So that is the first barrier, is getting the regional and State 

agencies to work sideways the same way, which I think is a huge 

barrier, because even though at this level the Federal Government 

is now working on an interagency fashion, the other layers are not 

always in the same alignment. 

Chairman DODD. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. WRAY. The second one is the major barrier is the simple cost. 

It is much easier to do a greenfield site and put a shopping center 

in a cornfield than it is to take a brownfield site that has multiple 

ownership disputes, that has all kinds of other limitations, maybe 

small parcels that need to be assembled. And so part of that is just 

the nature of complexity of pulling together redevelopment as opposed to development. 

Of course, in Connecticut, as you know, with a 150-year history 

of industrialization, we have a lot of brownfield sites, but also very 

well located sites that are convenient. So we have that barrier of 

assembling sites and cleaning things up. It is much harder to do 

than just moving to greenfields. So complexity is one barrier. 

And the last one, I think, is long term versus short term. Many 

times, finance is on a very short basis. What can you show me in 

the next 90 days? Some of the sustainability issues are a much 

longer perspective. 

As an example, we have two to three million acres of struggling 

strip malls in the United States that are not very financially viable, two to three million acres, which is absolutely amazing, and 

many of them are near transit and many of them are near existing 

major highway infrastructure that would be perfect for redevelopment into housing and mixed use with some work. But that is a 

long-term perspective. It is a lot easier to just go out to a greenfield 

and start from scratch and build mixed-income housing than it is 

to sort of take on that two to three million acres of struggling strip 

malls in the country and sort of say, how do we turn this into 

something different? 

We have in our package that was submitted to the Committee a 

report called ‘‘Gray Infrastructure: From Gray to Green,’’ where we 

have a pilot in one of our regions in the city of Manchester, Connecticut, that looks at how you take a dead strip mall and turn it 

into a sustainable mixed-use, mixed-income development that is 

environmentally friendly. But the point about that is, it is way 

more complicated. There are a lot more moving parts, Senator, to 

getting that whole package put together than just walking up the 

road 10 miles and putting in a new development. 

So I think those are the major things, the silo funding, that we 

still have to work hard on integration with the reauthorization of 

the transportation bill. Perhaps how that evolves could be helpful 

there. The greenfield versus brownfield complex is just a lot more 

complicated. And then, finally, this long-term perspective. It takes 

time to address those two to three million acres of struggling shopping centers around the country, but they are a great opportunity. 

I mean, some people talk about them as the land bank of the future, that struggling strip malls are the land bank of the 21st century. So I think there is some optimism there, as well. 

Chairman DODD. Just quickly, on that point, I remember when 

we dealt with the brownfields legislation, we made, I thought, a 
21 

very intelligent decision that in order to remediate, to clean up 

these sites, we didn’t insist that it ought to be so clean that you 

could put a child care center on it—— 

Mr. WRAY. Right. 

Chairman DODD. ——but that if you had an alternative idea, if 

it wasn’t going to pose the kind of risks obviously that you want 

an infant child in the midst of, that that would make some sense, 

being the alternative, you couldn’t do anything. If you couldn’t 

make it that clean, it was sitting there vacant. 

It seems to me that in order—we ought to incentivize this kind 

of idea you are talking about so that it actually becomes an attractive financial investment for someone willing to make or take that 

property and begin to turn it into something that is also a tax-producing property and providing the kind of either housing or commercial space that would make it work. 

Mr. WRAY. Mr. Chairman, I think the point in Connecticut is on 

the commuter rail line from Hartford to New Haven and the 

busway line that is planned from Hartford to New Britain, we have 

about probably 15 downtown areas that have exactly the kind of 

sites you are talking about. But pulling it together, you know, the 

issue of brownfields and how they could be cleaned up, we did a 

major clean-up site, as you well know, in the Goodwin College area 

on the Connecticut River with help from you and others. That can 

be done. But the upshot of it is, I think is the barriers you just 

asked about when you talk about those 15 city town centers with 

multiple ownership, multiple brownfield sites, small parcels that 

need to be assembled, redevelopment in a green sustainable infrastructure way. 

All I am suggesting is that is why we need this bill. It is a heavy 

lift, because someone might ask, well, why don’t you just do it? 

Well, because we have been working on it. We have been doing our 

homework on station area planning and brownfields and so on, but 

there is a lot of work to be done to weave all those pieces together. 

And, as I say, the 15 station areas that we have on the drawing 

board in Connecticut could use this help, but most of them are 

brownfield sites. Most of them need assembly of land into larger 

parcels that would be suitable for construction for private sector. 

Chairman DODD. Yes. Let me turn to—I have taken a lot of time. 

I want to come back to this point. I know you all have points you 

want to raise, as well, but let me turn to Senator Tester because 

I have taken a lot of time. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

panelists for being here, and you are astute in your analysis of the 

thoughts running through my head as the Commissioner was talking. 

I want to start with Dr. Wray. You had talked about back in 

1957, back in the tricycle ages when an individual talked about 

highway systems encouraging sprawl and how in retrospect he was 

spot on in his analysis. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, 

but that is what I heard, and I agree with that. 

In many areas, I think, of the country, but in many areas of 

Montana in particular, noting that planning is a local duty and 

should be a local duty because the challenges in every area is a little bit different as you go around the country, education is so criti-
22 

cally important because a lot of people don’t understand, as they 

did in 1957, they didn’t understand how important planning was, 

and today, that attitude still exists. We end up building our houses 

on the best farmland available. We end up dealing with septic systems that in a few years or decades we find out are polluting our 

water and we have got to spend a bunch more money. Anyway, we 

all know how important planning is. 

The education component of this bill, where does it fall in? Is it 

adequate? Is it even there? And is that something we should pay 

attention to? 

Mr. WRAY. Senator, thank you very much for the opportunity. 

Even though I live in Connecticut, I was born about 70 miles north 

of Havre, so I am pretty familiar with their neck of the woods. 

Senator TESTER. My gosh, that is Alberta. 

Mr. WRAY. Medicine Hat. 

Senator TESTER. Oh, really? 

Mr. WRAY. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. Born in the Hat. All right. 

Mr. WRAY. Yes. I knew Great Falls better than my hometown, 

so thank you, Senator. I had cowboy boots before I had dress shoes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator TESTER. You are all right in my book. 

Mr. WRAY. But I don’t tell anyone that in Connecticut. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WRAY. I think the idea of a sustainability group that is 

talked about for the regions for this education, where you bring together private sector, public sector, and others in a consortium to 

talk about these ideas, it is extremely important, and we started 

to do that in the Hartford, Connecticut area, which has been very 

powerful. But the builders’ association, developers, private investors, and others, and they get it. 

The idea of green infrastructure, when you say you can cut your 

sewer costs in half or by a third by doing different kinds of 

stormwater—when I was a county manager, the idea was to get 

stormwater off the grass and onto a blacktop and into a sewer as 

soon as possible. That was sort of what I was taught. And now we 

are saying, flip that all around, saying keep it in holding ponds, 

rain gardens, and so on. But the point about that is, when you 

bring all those people together in a group, so our sewer authority, 

our developers begin to have conversations that are, I think, mutually educative. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. WRAY. The second thing, I think, is that the private sector 

is not sitting on its hands here. The LEED certification in many 

of our private sector buildings is coming along. But I think convening people who are working on these areas together, and I think 

it is extremely important to get investors, developers, contractors, 

road associations together in the room so we all talk on the same 

sheet of music. 

So that education is not abstract. It is about projects. And, as I 

mention, we have almost a billion dollar combined sewer overflow 

project going on in our region, and when we knocked on the door 

of the regional sewer authority and said, we could actually save a 

lot of money by doing green infrastructure, trust me, they took our 
23 

call and said, can you meet, like, later today? So that education 

function, I think, is proceeding apace. 

Senator TESTER. OK, and it is adequate in the bill simply because you are automatically bringing folks together for a common 

goal? 

Mr. WRAY. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. OK. That is good. I want to talk the Commissioner a little bit. Julia, you talked about subcategories for rural 

in your testimony—and I think that is interesting—to ensure that 

rural is able to share in the pie. 

Ms. GOUGE. Right. 

Senator TESTER. Is there population levels that you see—and, I 

do not know, I mean, we are talking—you know, there is—I mean, 

I come from a town of 700 people. It is 120 miles south of Medicine 

Hat. But there are a lot of towns of 3,500 in the State of Montana, 

I mean, a lot of them that have some challenges. Do you see this 

bill being able to work for them? And is it structured so it can work 

for them? 

Ms. GOUGE. I think it is most important that these small counties and small areas be concerned, and maybe we need to emphasize it even more importantly that the smallest areas are just as 

important as the large cities. 

The biggest problem, I think, that is going to be for any of the 

smaller areas is whether or not they have the ability to have grant 

writers or people who can really get to the information itself. Sometimes it is more difficult. We have good grant writers right now in 

my particular county, but I have talked to a lot of other small counties, and they say, ‘‘We do not even have anyone our staff such as 

that.’’ So how do we reach those smaller jurisdictions that they can 

be included, that they feel they are part of this whole plan? 

If we do not start with the small areas like that, we are going 

to lose our land mass. I mean, there is no question. You were just 

talking about, you know, development overall. We are facing right 

now, just as you said, houses that were built in small towns or villages that really have no water or sewer system, trying to find 

monies—and we really work through the USDA bill to see if we 

could get some grants for some of those small towns. But the cost 

would be about $400 a month for them. 

So, in-filling some of the areas is almost impossible at times, you 

know, even though everybody talks about the in-fill. But if you do 

not have money for water and sewer systems, you cannot even 

begin some of those processes. So we need to really be thinking in 

the broad point of view for the small communities. How do we 

reach them? Are we making it more difficult for them to find the 

monies and then to actually use them? 

Senator TESTER. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Warner, welcome. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize to 

the panel about missing your testimony, but this is an area that 

I have interest in as well. Before I had this job, I was Governor, 

and this concept of livability is something that we have wrestled 

with at some level in the Commonwealth of Virginia and continue 
24 

to wrestle with and a lot of the issues—I do not reveal this often, 

although the Chairman often reminds folks whenever we are together I actually grew up in Connecticut. I try not to emphasize 

that in Virginia too often. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WARNER. But, you know, I am familiar with some of the 

challenges there, but we have got the same—— 

Chairman DODD. We brag about you all the time. 

Senator WARNER. ——challenges in Virginia, where we have got 

enormous growth opportunities, and that question of, you know, go 

down the road and build a new shopping center versus the in-fill. 

We have got a lot of that in some of our inner suburbs in Northern 

Virginia, for example, a lot down in Hampton Roads as well. 

So I believe in the concept and, you know, I am very interested 

in learning more about this legislation and commend the Chairman 

and those who have been cosponsors already. I am trying to get 

more comfortable with it myself. 

There are some—you know, this is going to be a tougher row to 

hoe in today’s climate than it was even a couple years back, I 

sense. You know, there is an enormous—you know, the immediate 

critiques of this bill will be, you know, is it just about squishy livability; you know, is it once again the Federal Government further 

extending its reach into areas that, as my colleague from Montana, 

Senator Tester, said, has always been appropriately a local process? And, you know, the payback timeframe on any new initiative 

I think now is going to be at a level of scrutiny, at least I personally hope, that we need to be unprecedented. 

So I guess—and just, again, as a set-up, one of the other areas 

that I have been big on has been Government performance and 

metrics, and they have actually given me a little portfolio on that 

here to try to keep me quiet in the Senate. And one of the things 

I have wondered about is, you know, as we think about livability, 

is there a way—and this is for anybody on the panel to respond 

to—that we can define this with metrics that are truly measurable, 

that can—to make sure that we might have a more full participation actually from our Committee on both sides of the aisle on a 

future basis so we can make the case that this is value-add, that 

there is a way to measure the performance of livability, that we 

could even go—and I would even like to extend the question to the 

question of, you know, is there an ability to—and this would be relatively radical, but, Ms. Gouge, as you have mentioned, you know, 

to actually tie Federal grant awards based upon meeting some of 

these metrics or based upon kind of having this collaboration at the 

local level and that collaboration in having all of these groups participate in this planning process would enhance the ability to receive Federal or State funding. So, you know, how do we make— 

how do we move this from being a good-government concept into 

today’s more hard-nosed metrics and appropriately cost-contained 

world? Anybody want to take a crack at that? 

Mr. WRAY. Can I start, Senator? And then we can go from there. 

Senator WARNER. Yes. 

Mr. WRAY. Performance measurement is one of my passions, too, 

and I have been published in the area for a long time. This is a 

very complex area, and this will require a constellation of meas-
25 

ures, so there is not one measure, but what I was saying before is 

cost of infrastructure. When you look around the world, places have 

done cost of infrastructure estimates with more sustainable models. 

It is in the 20- to 30-percent savings range, whether it is sewer systems, electric plants. By having more compact development, you 

save money. So just in terms of the hard-nosed numbers, you will 

not find a single measure. That is one. 

I think one of the—— 

Senator WARNER. Well, let me just interject here one moment. It 

seems to me—and I think your example earlier was dead on—that 

when the developer says it is easier to go do that greenfield site, 

to develop that commercial shopping center—let us take that example—the cost equation that goes into the developer is really the cost 

of the land, the cost of the processing permit, but the added infrastructure burdens that we, the public, have to pick up, to take on, 

to build the road infrastructure to get to that shopping center is 

never factored in. How do we make, you know, all the externality 

costs truly fit in so there can be a real, better business case analysis of how we do the in-fill in a better way? 

Mr. WRAY. Well, Senator, you have put your finger on one of the 

things, because some people would say this is social engineering 

and we should not be doing that. Well, 90 percent Federal funding 

for an interstate highway system and mortgage interest deduction 

are social engineering, if you want, too, which is pushing it in a 

certain direction. So the policies you set here in terms of tax policy 

and investments really do set directions. 

The point you are mentioning I think is a very complex one, and 

that is, in many systems we have gotten into trouble because the 

externalities are not priced in, so pollution has not historically been 

priced in to certain things in terms of auto emissions for a long 

time. Transportation costs have not been factored into building 

highways further out and so forth. 

That is the kind of work I think that goes onto the research side 

of this, which is various parts of the world are struggling with very 

similar issues. We are not unique in that circumstance. I think we 

have to look at—I think one aspect is revealing these costs. One 

of the things that has not been done is just putting these things 

out on the table. Many times people do not understand these costs. 

The second, though, I think is the reduction of the effort to do 

brownfield development. We have to make it a lot easier for a developer just in terms of getting through red tape and threading a 

needle. When you look at—we have a recent proposal in Connecticut for transit-oriented development off of a spur line on the 

Metro North line, and they had a list of the funding arrangements 

and regulatory approvals. It took two PowerPoint slides with small 

type. That just would not be true if you were doing greenfield. So 

we need to streamline at the local level, too, some of the processes 

for getting through the regulatory thicket. It is not just money. 

So the points you are mentioning are very large points. I think 

it goes to the transportation reauthorization bill in terms of Secretary LaHood talking about livability as one of the dimensions of 

projects. I think how we structure the way we issue money here already I think is one of the aspects. 
26 

But the metrics, I think, for this are complex. Let me give you 

one example. The European Union has a very nice book with two 

pages for each metropolitan area, and this does not speak to the 

rural areas, but it is equally true there. On the left-hand side is, 

‘‘Where does your carbon come from, your carbon dioxide come 

from?’’ On the right-hand side, ‘‘What are sensible mitigation strategies that actually are progrowth competitive positioning?’’ In other 

words, here is one set of metrics that they are using, which is here 

is where you carbon dioxide is coming from, here is what you can 

do in terms of transit-oriented development or changing your 

sourcing for electricity or whatever it is on the right-hand side. But 

those are the kinds of things that have to get developed. 

Again, how that actually gets done is incentives for local governments making decisions and then finally developers I think is critical, but I think carbon emissions is one. Time in congestion is another metric. There is a whole series of these that would have to 

be articulated, and the point you mentioned I think is a critical 

one, and that is, bringing the externalities back into the decision. 

Just as an example of that, 2 to 3 million acres of struggling or 

dead strip malls in the United States, you know, that is a cost 

right now. And the question is, How do you look at the 20- or 30- 

year horizon of redeveloping those in ways that are sustainable and 

sensible for economic development? But I think one of the real 

problems here is the time horizon for some of these things might 

be a little longer than the private sector is comfortable making. If 

you are looking at speculative office buildings or speculative commercial, they do not have the kind of timeframes that would perhaps be supported right now unless we have them think in a different way. 

Senator WARNER. Do others want to comment on this question? 

Mr. MCKINNEY. Sure, briefly I will address that. I think one difference in this bill is the fact that there is implementation dollars 

at the end of the rainbow that I think motivates local governments 

to plan rather than just make a plan and hug and go home. So 

with those implementation dollars, I think you can then look at 

how do you measure the success of those. And I think we are working with EPA on a number of grants now on measurability, and 

one of those certainly is reduction of utility costs. I think there is 

a dollar amount you can place on that that our planning efforts led 

to this reduction, measuring greenhouse gas emissions, a reduction 

there, as well as private leveraging. I mean, I think these are not 

the only dollars that are going to go into implementing a regional 

sustainability plan. In fact, I think you are probably aware that the 

Ford Foundation yesterday pledged $200 million to livability principles that are contained in this very bill. 

So I think there are measurables that you can establish because 

there is—at the end of the rainbow, it is not just development planning and hoping you find money, but there is incentive to do that, 

and then I think you could measure your success based on a couple 

things that the EPA is already doing. 

Ms. NYTES. Senator, I am very excited to hear of your interest 

in performance measurement and subsequently, I assume, performance management. The National League of Cities and 12 other 

groups have actually been engaged over the last year in trying to 
27 

come to some agreement about the language and the approach and 

the important considerations as we ask governmental units to use 

those very tools in managing their resources better going forward. 

I do think there is a very important role for the Federal Government in these discussions. I do not think it is just squishy, as you 

said. But, in fact, the problem that we have is that it is a big-picture problem and it is a long-term problem, and the improvements 

have to be measured over time. 

In the case, for example, of some of our older cities, it is going 

to take some time, but if we do these things right, over time we 

are going to find that pockets of our cities that have had low per 

capita income, for example, or low per capita education, for example, or that have had high utility cutoffs or any of these other indicators that we use to try to determine what is the quality of life 

in an area, if we make the right choices about energy-efficient 

homes, easy access to transportation, the reuse of existing structures, whether they be old schools or old factories, however we do 

these things, over time those indicators will rise. Right now in an 

area like Indianapolis, if you look at the outer ring around the city 

over the last 10 years—— 

Senator WARNER. I was actually born in Indianapolis and lived 

there for a decade as well. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. NYTES. Well, then, you know of what I speak. Absolutely. 

The indicators in the outer ring have risen while the indicators in 

some of the inner neighborhoods have fallen. But it takes a long 

time for that to change, and it takes multiple agencies coordinating 

efforts to bring about that change, and that is where I do think the 

Federal Government does have an important role. 

Senator WARNER. Julia, did you want to add something? And I 

just had one more comment, and my time has run over. 

Ms. GOUGE. I just think it is very important for goals to be 

made—for the counties to reach or whoever happens to be doing 

this, and I know as a commissioner on programs that we are funding directly from county government as well as grants, I am constantly asking, you know, what are the results of this, what have 

we been able to do, how has our money really been used. And I 

think it is only natural that the Federal Government, if they are 

giving out grants, should have goals. 

I do agree that sometimes you cannot see that goal in 6 months. 

It might take several years until you would really see the full extent of the value. But if we do not have some of these things, a lot 

of it is not going to happen. And Senator Dodd talked about the 

land we are losing every year, and we are losing it because people 

can go out in that clean area, build houses, put it on private septic 

and wells, where if they had the incentive to bring some of those 

things in closer to the municipalities, we would use that land, we 

would in-fill, and the reality would be our land would be so much 

better. The energy costs would be so much less. All of the things 

that we have been talking about in this bill could actually become 

a reality if we were able to help some of those things. 

Senator WARNER. Well, three quick points, and, again, my time 

has gone way over. One is, you know, I think you need those 

metrics that are understandable and translatable beyond Govern-
28 

ment performance geeks like us—you know, that are understandable, number one. 

And, number two, to Mr. McKinney’s point, I think there ought 

to be some ability to then say that those implementation dollars at 

the end of the rainbow, that there ought to be differential 

grantmaking based upon whether you have met these criteria of 

proving that you are going to hit these metrics and their cost-effectiveness. 

Number three, again, back to Dr. Wray’s point, one of my—and 

this is politically incorrect to say, I acknowledge, but, you know, 

one of my great concerns as a former Governor was that, you know, 

I would—my friends in the environmental community would appropriately be concerned about sprawl and raise those issues, but then 

be unwilling to relax—and the Chairman raised this on the 

brownfields issue, which I think, you know, then we would still not 

be willing to relax any of the in-fill process requirements that make 

the project not viable. You know, it is just whacky. You cannot 

have it both ways. There is going to have to be that moment of 

judgment that the enhanced value of the in-fill, those 3 million 

acres of dead strip malls, it is devastating to leave them there for 

communities, and particularly, you know, in terms of older cities, 

appropriately your process. 

And then just one last process thing, and this is more about Senate process than anything. The transportation modes that have 

been advocated in the bill have been mostly transit-focused, and 

they are appropriate for this Committee and needed. But at some 

point if the bill reaches the floor, it needs to include highway and 

congestion pricing around highway transportation, and particularly 

other rail modes as part of this overall structure. 

I really appreciate the Chairman and appreciate his leadership 

on this issue. 

Chairman DODD. On that point, obviously that is the case. My 

concern has always been about these issues, that the transit 

version or transit part of the transportation bills have always been 

just almost an afterthought. You do not have to be a Ph.D. in political science. When you get 80 cents on the dollar from the Federal 

Government to build a highway and you get 20 cents to build a 

transit system, which of the two are you going to take? And so 

aside from whether or not you want to have an alternative available, it is just—talk about a metric that works against you. When 

Uncle Sam is going to give you 80 cents on the dollar as opposed 

to 20 cents on the dollar, which of the two are you going to choose? 

And so all we are doing is trying to create some sort of a level playing field that allows communities to make those intelligent decisions. If it is the highway that is the thing they need, then they 

ought to have the ability to get whatever level of support you are 

going to provide but not discriminate against the alternative means 

of transportation, which in many of our areas today, given the examples that can be set by other communities, or around the world 

for that matter, what they have been able to do with this in terms 

of these other issues I think is very, very important as well. 

I was going to raise a couple of other questions for you, and, of 

course, one of the things about this, this is all purely voluntary in 

a sense. This is not a question where Uncle Sam is going to come 
29 

in and tell you what to do. But what we are looking for here is to 

be able to take hard-earned taxpayer money that comes to Washington to really get it back to communities, communities that have 

the appetite to want to move in this direction, to either preserve 

rural space, to encourage tourism in an area, to take brownfields 

in older cities, industrialized places, to make them work. And they 

are working. It is wonderful. You talk about places that are really 

working, you got to a place like a Portland, Oregon, where I was 

not long ago—Jeff Merkley was here a while ago—a city that was 

in real trouble, and, again, with a light-rail system coming in, they 

made some very intelligent decisions. Portland is a very viable city. 

I have got some family in the room here today. Providence, Rhode 

Island, has been a great story that has happened, not many years 

ago a place that was in real trouble, typical of many industrialized 

cities. Today, a very livable city. Real estate values are up. People 

are living there. There is a lot of activity going on. You can give 

example after example of places that are working and getting this 

done in different ways. 

So I am excited about the concept and the idea, and I just want 

to raise a couple of issues, if I could. I have got a series of questions which I may submit to all of you as well to respond. I am not 

going to take a long time with you here. But I wanted to raise with 

you, if I could, Dr. Wray—you have mentioned here and I have 

mentioned the Charlotte, North Carolina, light-rail system and 

what a value and difference that made in that community’s sustainable and smart growth. You know we have been working at 

home with the Governor and so forth—you had mentioned the New 

Haven to Springfield, Massachusetts, line. I wonder if you can just 

discuss the opportunities for development that that new transit 

corridor or transit corridors like that to communities and some of 

the challenges they face in moving that kind of development forward. And I think you have addressed this already by talking 

about all of those criteria you have to meet in order to do this and 

how discouraging it can be and why developers do not want to step 

up and do it. And I am just a great believer—we have got to learn 

how to cut through a lot of this. Here we are moving forward. The 

biggest hang-up we have got here now are the environmental 

issues. Now, they are very important, but if you cannot get through 

it and you lose those resources, then everything else fails, in my 

view. 

But I wonder if you might just comment on that briefly and then 

ask others to address that issue. 

Mr. WRAY. Mr. Chairman, I was frankly mystified that we have 

to do an environmental impact statement in full regard for a 150- 

rail raid bed, but maybe I am just a little thick. But that is another 

story. The Federal NEPA process is rather interesting. 

We have a lot of communities that are excited and chomping at 

the bit to move on the commuter rail line and the busway line. Basically you have, in the case of Springfield to New Haven and from 

Hartford to New Britain, as I say, a dozen and a half communities 

that have downtowns that are struggling. Even within Hartford, 

the part near Union Station is struggling. 

So in all these areas, you have usually brownfields, usually small 

sites that need to be assembled, and complex sets of ownership. 
30 

And where I think the Livable Communities Act would be very 

helpful in terms of the implementation side is helping to pull together all those things, like master agreement, very boring kind of 

basic development services kind of functions that are very hard to 

do. 

Now, we have been doing brownfields work in the region with 

help from you and others to get moving on this, but the point about 

it is the assembly of land, the organization of parcels needs to be 

done on a larger basis. And, frankly, as you were mentioning, we 

have many small communities—our largest city is 120,000, and 

they are much, much smaller than that. And so sometimes we need 

a regional attempt to help smaller communities along the line take 

advantage of these station areas. 

We have places like Windsor Locks near the Bradley Airport, 

Windsor and other places that are ready to go, very excited about 

this bill, and would look very much forward to helping. But it is 

taking older, somewhat polluted sites, assembling them, redeveloping them, getting them ready, as you say, not for use as a playground for children but for more commercial uses that takes some 

work, and it is actually a very complex and, unfortunately, lengthy 

process to get that done. 

Chairman DODD. I should point out, by the way—and, Julia, you 

will appreciate this. I will not bore the Committee with the history 

of this, but Connecticut is one of the few States in the country that 

does not have any county government. We did. And I have to watch 

every bill that comes through because most legislation is written 

and where counties are the political entity that we provide resources to, and if I do not watch every bill to make sure that towns 

and communities, with my 169 cities and towns in a State that is 

110 miles by 60 miles in size, I mean, I did not say it when Jon 

Tester of Montana—he has got counties that are twice the size of 

my State in terms of geographically speaking. But we have to 

watch it all the time. We got rid of county government. This was 

devolution of government back in the 1950s, and we have paid an 

awful price for it over the years, and trying to get cooperation, I 

want to recognize Dr. Wray’s efforts in that regard, and other leaders of our Council of Regional Governments in Connecticut that 

have done a good job with that. 

I wonder if you might comment on the—I mentioned the demographic issues, and I want to turn to some of our other witnesses 

here. I was sort of stunned by the very numbers as I read them 

over with my staff last evening about the number of households declining with 18-year-olds or younger in them, and getting down to 

the point where only a quarter of our homes by the year 2050 will 

have 18-year-olds or younger in their homes today. And obviously 

an aging population, a great credit to our health care system and 

other things, lifestyles, people living longer, healthier lives. But, 

obviously, their needs differ, and so I wonder if you might comment 

briefly on this. I will begin with you, Jackie, if I can, and just share 

some thoughts on the demographic issues and whether or not and 

how you are addressing those questions. 

Ms. NYTES. Thank you, Senator. I am glad you have returned to 

that. When you mentioned it in your opening remarks, I was reminded once again of how serious I think this is. 
31 

If we all think just in our own worlds of the number of people 

we know who are living to an age where they should no longer be 

driving or at least should no longer be driving on interstates, and 

yet, of course, we want for our populations to stay active. Our older 

populations are saying very active. They need a way to move 

around our communities, and that comes back to some of the core 

concepts of this legislation, which is walkable communities, for example, communities that have fully integrated multimodal transit 

systems, which means buses and light rail, those other kinds of 

things. People have got to be able to get from one side of town, 

downtown to go to a Sunday afternoon symphony performance because they want to but they do not want to drive anymore. They 

need to be able to get to a grocery store, but they do not necessarily 

want to get in the car and take the interstate out to the super 

store, which takes longer to walk through than they can even have 

the energy for any longer. So, clearly, the length of our life is 

changing our patterns, and we have got to be thinking about this. 

It also impacts a lot of supply-and-demand issues in our communities. In many of our older communities, we now have empty or 

near-empty schools, and we have suburban pressures to build new 

schools. Well, if we look over the long run, the day is going to come 

when we are going to have empty schools out there, too, and so if 

we do not focus on in-fill construction and on trying to change the 

paradigm that Ray Suarez talked about in the old neighborhood 

where it was this constant pattern of out-migration, if we do not 

find a way to get people to think about the American dream in a 

different way, we are going to have a lot of half-empty buildings 

that governmental units are trying to support and do not have the 

tax base to keep up. And I think looking at it through the lens of 

the demographic change is actually something that people can process. Decision makers can get that if we talk about it enough and 

we help them do the match to understand what it says about the 

provision of services, and then ultimately at the local level the payment for those services. 

Chairman DODD. I think marketing, too. We know it is how people perceive life to be, and if someone—I live seven blocks from this 

building in an area on Capitol Hill, aside from, obviously, my home 

in Connecticut. I have seen change in the last few years in this city 

in terms of what is available, how we spend our weekends and 

time. And I have two very young children. It is becoming very, very 

livable. My daughters are taking a swimming lesson tonight, and 

there is a dance class around the corner. There is a library down 

the street. There is the Eastern Market on weekends. There are all 

sorts of things that you do not normally associate with the inner 

city—not that I am necessarily in inner city, but living in an urban 

area. So, again, marketing these places as viable, vibrant communities I think can do a lot. 

Julia, do you want to comment on this as well, the demographic 

issues. 

Ms. GOUGE. Yes. We are actually considered an aging group in 

the Baltimore region. We call ourselves the graying group, but the 

reality is more and more, particularly in my county, the homes are 

being built for 55 and over and definitely no children can be included in any of those homes. We have two very large complexes 
32 

run by religious organizations but for hundreds and hundreds of 

people owning their own home, going on then to assist living, even 

then to nursing homes all within the same facilities. So people can 

go there, and that is really part of their lifestyle now to know that 

they can truly grow old there with someone taking care of them. 

But one of the other things we are finding besides all of these 

55-and-over homes that are being built is the senior centers. Since 

I have been a commissioner, we have built five senior centers, and 

two of those we have actually changed and enlarged quite a bit. 

There are hundreds of people that come every day, and the activities are so diverse so that the people can truly come there, feel like 

this is one very large family, whether it is woodworking, whether 

they are playing pool or bingo or some other thing, or doing crafts. 

The lessons, the community college comes in and teaches classes all 

the time to our seniors as well. 

So this is the graying community, and we are having to work 

with them. And, of course, the senior centers, I mean, they just 

love them because particularly widows or widowers can now come 

and really become a part of the community again. And so many of 

them said, ‘‘We would not even be alive today, we do not believe, 

if we would not have had these activities and people to really care 

about us.’’ 

So I think that is going to be even more important in the future. 

If you think a county of our size that can have five large senior 

centers plus all these other things, it is obvious what people truly 

need. 

Of course, whenever I talk to seniors, I always encourage them: 

Have you been to our senior center? Please go. You will feel wonderful. And that is keeping our people healthier longer. 

Chairman DODD. That is good. 

Let me mention, if I can, I was curious whether or not any of 

you were involved in this. HUD recently announced the availability 

of $100 million for sustainable communities regional planning 

grants. It is very close, obviously, to the planning grants we have 

authorized or would authorize in this bill. I have heard a great deal 

of excitement about the program at the Hartford session we had, 

Doctor, with HUD and DOT and EPA officials. I wonder, is this the 

kind of program your communities are interested in applying for? 

And does it offer any lessons that we ought to be looking at in our 

Livable Communities Act? And I suspect, Joe, you may be—the 

question—it is a grant, planning grants, but it does not have that 

rainbow you talked about at the end. Am I anticipating an answer 

to my question? 

Mr. MCKINNEY. I think there is at least a small pot at the end 

of the rainbow in terms of that grant, and I am glad you brought 

that up. 

I will say that back home in Asheville today we have about 90 

local officials meeting with HUD, EPA, DOT, and other Federal 

agencies to talk specifically about livable communities and the 

HUD opportunity. So I would like for you to write me a letter of 

excuse for my absence there today. 

But I will say that that opportunity has really excited our community, and, again, going back to the fact that it is not just planning for planning’s sake, that HUD I think is offering an oppor-
33 

tunity for communities to come together and look at a coordinated 

planning process that at the end of the day is not just a document 

that sits on the shelf. And we have been fortunate to have started 

that process regionally a couple years back, but the HUD opportunity I think is exciting a lot of communities. And I think our 

group has said if we never see a dollar from that, starting that 

process of getting people to the table to talk about coordinated 

planning efforts, transportation, housing, environment, and so forth 

is the start of our livable initiative in our region. 

So we are excited about that opportunity, as I am sure others at 

this table are as well. So that is a good start. 

Chairman DODD. Anybody else want to comment on that? Yes, 

Doctor? 

Mr. WRAY. Mr. Chairman, we are very excited. We actually have 

been working with the Pioneer Valley across the border in Massachusetts. We are actually part of a two-State region, as you know, 

between Springfield and Hartford. So we have been working on 

this. 

And back to your point about the pot of gold at the end of the 

rainbow, the initial concept was to have no more than 20 percent 

on planning, a very broad regional discussion and sort of important 

things like affordable housing, transit-oriented development and so 

on, but reserving 80 percent of the money for actually doing something with the plan. So there would be subchallenge grants to the 

regional communities once the plan was approved to actually do 

something with this. 

Chairman DODD. That is encouraging. 

Mr. WRAY. So we think it is important because I think we have 

all been around the planning business long enough to sort of—as 

you say, the ‘‘plan, hug, and go home’’ model really does not work 

very long. But we have had a lot of excitement around it. Frankly, 

there was a little jostling and elbowing about who gets the money, 

which you might expect. But the good news I think we see this as 

a template for working together for the next 10 or 20 years. 

Chairman DODD. That is good. 

Mr. WRAY. Because the integration of environment, transportation, economic development across a corridor like that we think 

is the way we are going to be doing a lot of work. So it is not just 

getting ready for the T–HUD grants; it is really the issue of working this way together over the long haul, plus the sustainable Capitol Region Initiative which we are working on. So we see the T– 

HUD money as helping and moving in that direction, but, again, 

our idea would be to reserve 80 percent for actually doing something on the ground. 

Chairman DODD. Jackie. 

Ms. NYTES. Senator, I could answer the question better on Friday 

because tomorrow at lunch we are meeting with the Assistant Secretary from HUD back in Indianapolis to discuss this. I can tell you 

more in a follow-up. 

Chairman DODD. Drop us a note afterwards. 

Ms. NYTES. We will be happy to. Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. Julia, any comments on this? 

Ms. GOUGE. Just that our regional planning council, the Baltimore Metropolitan Council, is working on a number of these things 
34 

and on transportation, a very long range program for energy efficiency, all of those things, yes. 

Chairman DODD. Let me ask you to do me a favor. I am going 

to wrap this up, but I have a couple other questions. I think we 

have covered the rural stuff very well. I thought Senator Tester’s 

questions, obviously interested in that. The health issues you have 

addressed as well, I think. All of you have commented to one degree or another about the importance of the health aspect of this 

thing, which we have not really addressed. So those are sort of the 

remaining questions I had for you on this subject matter. 

But I would like you to—the first question I asked you was one 

that I can sense already—and you heard it from Senator Warner, 

and it is a very legitimate question, and it is one that you obviously 

think about all the time because you have to ask yourself the same 

question every time you talk about these issues, and that is, these 

economic metrics in a sense. 

I would like you to contribute to my conversation with my colleagues about this because I anticipate a very legitimate question 

coming. We are asking for an authorization of $400 million for the 

planning grants for the country. We are asking for an authorization 

of something in excess of $3 billion for actually implementation 

grants on this. At a time, obviously, when the country is deeply 

concerned about rising deficits, how do you pay for this, what are 

the benefits to come out of this thing, what are the costs and so 

forth, we need to have better answers than we have. 

All four of you can really help, I think, by giving us some ideas 

that you obviously understand already, that you can—there are 

huge cost savings involved both for individuals, for communities, 

and for the Federal Government, if we think about this and recognize the value of investing in this area, how much of a return 

comes immediately back to our Nation as a result of this. 

So I would be very interested in having for the benefit of the 

Committee as we move forward with this to be able to respond intelligently to these questions, and obviously, you have thought 

about them, so that would be a great help to us. I will ask you if 

would you do that in the coming couple of weeks as we think about 

moving forward. 

You have been tremendously helpful this morning. I am very, 

very grateful to all four of you for your knowledge, and I thank you 

for your service as well. I was deeply impressed, looking over your 

resumes, how every single one of you has been deeply involved in 

your communities for a long time, even running for public office, 

Julia. I have often thought—someone once said that—I say this facetiously before I read about it tomorrow in the paper—that in 

order to vote, you have to run for public office. You do not have to 

get elected. You just have to know what it is like to have a screen 

door slammed in your nose. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman DODD. That joy of facing people who are in this day 

and age obviously as angry as we have ever seen them, and with 

a lot of cause and justification. Things are not moving as well as 

we would all like them to be. But I admire people immensely. The 

toughest politics in the country are at the local level. You do not 

get to leave town. You do not get to go to your capital city and get 
35 

away. You certainly do not get to go to Washington and get away. 

You make decisions at night. You get up in the morning, and your 

kids and your family will be—you do not have to wait a week to 

get a response. People let you know before the ink is dry. We do 

not celebrate enough, in my view, in the country the people who 

literally as volunteers basically, is what it comes down to, it is really almost volunteering, what they do every single day in those 

3,000 counties and the thousands and thousands of communities 

across our country, good people who get up every day to try to improve the quality of life of the people of their community at the 

local level. And we ought to do more to celebrate what you do every 

day, so I thank you immensely for your service to your communities and to our country. 

With that, the Committee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements, responses to written questions, and additional material supplied for the record follow:] 
36 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Given the poor history of urban planning in the United States in the 20th century, I believe it is worth noting that each of our witnesses have had successes with 

locally driven community planning initiatives. 

Unlike the central planning of the 1960s that bulldozed entire neighborhoods, 

built expressways through city centers, and established acres of public housing 

units, today’s witnesses planned with an eye towards the consumer, incorporating 

pedestrian-friendly city centers, accessible parking and public transportation; all in 

full partnership with private enterprise. 

With the documented successes achieved through local initiative and ingenuity, I 

question the centralized approach to planning that is being advocated today. 

I am eager to hear from our witnesses about how their locally based planning successes would have been affected if the legislation we are discussing had been in 

place when they were developing their master plans. 

The legislation is designed to encourage localities and regions to plan cities and 

neighborhoods that incorporate public transportation, pedestrian and bicycle paths, 

more affordable housing, and environmentally friendly, sustainable development. 

This ‘‘encouragement,’’ however, is really a mandate as the Federal dollars would 

only be provided if the plans meet specific requirements. 

While there are some benefits to these goals, decision making should always be 

made at the State and local level. It is fundamental that each community be allowed 

to employ the means of development that best meets the needs of its citizens. 

A quick comparison of the planning requirements and residential needs of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, to those of East Haddam, Connecticut, Hoboken, New Jersey, Salt 

Lake City, Utah, or Billings, Montana, would yield significantly different results. 

Legislation that dangles a $4 billion pot of money in front of cash-strapped communities to ensure that they plan according to a Federal master plan is not what 

this country needs. Whether it is a voluntary grant program or not, the intention 

is clear, do it the way the Federal Government has decided it should be done. 

While I am eager to hear from our witnesses, I continue to believe that planning 

and zoning decisions are best left at the State and local level. The Federal Government does not have the answer to every problem and it certainly should not have 

the keys to cities all across the country to do with them what it will. I am concerned 

that is where this legislation is trying to lead us. 

Today’s approach is often driven by the marketplace and supported by cities and 

communities—quite different from the top-down, cookie cutter approach planners 

took in the 60s. 

Governors, Mayors, and City Council members are learning that it takes a coordinated public/private approach to implement a comprehensive master plan. Through 

locally determined—not federally established—standards and requirements, communities all across America are experiencing ‘‘guided’’ growth that meets the needs of 

their citizens. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACKIE NYTES 

CITY–COUNTY COUNCILLOR, CITY–COUNTY COUNCIL OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION

COUNTY, INDIANA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES

JUNE 9, 2010 

Good morning Chairman Dodd, Ranking Member Shelby, and Members of the 

Committee. Please allow me if you will to offer a special greeting from the folks 

back home to our Hoosier Member of the Committee, Senator Evan Bayh. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of the National 

League of Cities and thousands of locally elected municipal officials like myself who 

value the important partnership that our American cities have long shared with the 

Federal Government. We have accomplished so much together. The Livable Communities Act will ensure that we continue to do so in even better ways than before, 

despite the increasing demands on available resources. 

Across America, rapidly changing economies, demographic shifts, environmental 

pressures and aging infrastructure keep us in local government awake at night. City 

governments and their local partners work hard to deliver the many programs developed and funded by Congress. We are immensely grateful for the opportunity 

those programs have given us to address the challenges inherent in sustaining and 

growing our old cities, new suburbs, and small towns. 
37 

Reviewing the purposes of the Livable Communities Act, I am encouraged by the 

recognition that these many programs can not be allowed to act each as single instruments, but in fact will achieve their greatest impact if they playas an orchestra 

providing coordinated and integrated support. From my own experience, I want to 

speak to the value of such united efforts to underscore the importance of the approach called for in the Livable Communities Act. 

In Indianapolis, we have a number of redevelopment efforts underway, each the 

product of extensive, community driven planning and engagement. 

In the Binford Redevelopment and Growth area (BRAG), residents and area businesses originally joined together to fight blight and sprawl. They have since become 

a united voice to spearhead six priority issues: pedestrian access and connectivity, 

business development, crime reduction, increasing parks and green space, sustainability, and the development of transit driven opportunity. 

In the Mapleton Fall Creek area, where portions of the old neighborhood were 50 

percent vacant and abandoned, a community based development corporation expanded its focus from affordable housing to a vision of comprehensive community 

redevelopment where they understand that removing blight, creating green space, 

restoring commercial and retail services and enhancing transportation options are 

all necessary to transform a neighborhood built in the 20th century for 21st century 

lifestyles. 

In the Martindale Brightwood community, long abandoned rail yards and former 

industrial sites are now being rescued and repurposed for urban agriculture, transit 

oriented development and the provision of new schools and recreational opportunities. 

These stories lead one to ask why, if cities are doing so much already with our 

Federal dollars, do we need the Livable Communities Act? 

We need it because we must encourage a shared sense of vision about the work 

to be done. The most sustainable growth must be nurtured from every possible 

angle . . . cities can not just fix houses, or just build parks, or just enhance mobility 

by either adding sidewalks or more transit options—cities must do all of these 

things in concert and we can only act in concert back home in our cities if the programs supporting our efforts share this holistic approach. 

Given the current and near term fiscal environment, local governments are working hard to continue to identify ways to improve efficiency and streamline delivery 

of services to lessen the impact of the downturn on the families living in our neighborhoods. The Livable Communities Act would help cities achieve these goals by formalizing the links between different Federal agencies that every city and town 

comes into contact with—facilitating the interdependency of programming that we 

all have come to understand is critical. 

In Mapleton Fall Creek, they are building highly energy efficient homes and retrofitting 90-year-old homes to meet the highest current energy standards and trying 

to help the financial industry appreciate what these energy savings can mean to the 

financial capacity of a first time home buyer. 

In BRAG, developing the new transit stop will mean that families can afford to 

stay in their homes in the area even if the jobs have moved elsewhere because the 

decreasing costs of transportation and increased access give them more affordable 

options. 

In Martindale Brightwood, the resurgence of community gardens and schools that 

value walking and riding over automobiles allow the community to tackle a frightening trend in the younger populations of our inner city—childhood obesity. 

This all can happen when we can focus the resources of the community development programs like the Community Development Block Grant Program, the transit 

and the housing programs, the energy efficiency programs, the finance and mortgage regulators and those who help to fund our infrastructure—all on the same 

prize: healthy, livable communities. 

I commend Senator Dodd and the other sponsors of this legislation for seeking 

input from the National League of Cities and other local government groups from 

the very beginning; and I urge this Congress to continue your role as a great partner for our American cities. We have much work yet to do. 
38 

Attachment 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE MCKINNEY 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LAND–OF–SKY REGIONAL COUNCIL, ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATIONS

JUNE 9, 2010 

Thank you, Chairman Dodd, Ranking Member Shelby, and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today to share our region’s perspective on the 

Livable Communities Act and the need to better integrate housing, community development, transportation, and sustainable development policies. 

My name is Joe McKinney. I serve as Executive Director of the Land-of-Sky Regional Council, a regional planning and development organization serving 19 communities in Western North Carolina. Our four county region has a population of approximately 385,000, anchored by our largest city, Asheville, with a population of 

78,000. My organization is a member of the National Association of Development 

Organizations (NADO) and I currently serve on the NADO board of directors. 

The National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) provides advocacy, education, research and training for the national network of 520 regional development organizations. NADO members—known locally as councils of governments, economic development districts, local development districts, planning and development districts, regional councils and regional planning commissions—are focused on strengthening local governments, communities and economies through regional collaboration, comprehensive development strategies and program implementation. 

Our Nation’s regional development organizations manage and deliver a variety of 

Federal and State programs. Based on local needs and priorities, programs may include aging, census, community and economic development, emergency management 

and homeland security preparedness, GIS, housing, small business development finance, transportation and workforce development. A policy board of local elected officials, along with business, education and citizen representatives, governs and sets 

the priorities for each regional organization. 

NADO and its members fully support the Livable Communities Act and appreciate the indispensable role the legislation outlines for regional councils in coordinating and administering sustainable development planning and implementation activities with our local governments along with business, community and civic leaders. We encourage the Committee to retain the legislation’s focus on supporting and 

incentivizing the development and implementation of regional strategies that are regionally focuses and locally controlled on a voluntary basis. 

We want to strongly avoid Federal mandates and requirements on regional and 

local planning, yet also provide the incentives, tools, ideas and program framework 

to reward and encourage regional planning and development that links community 

and economic development, housing, and transportation in a more strategic and sustainable manner. 

Despite being a predominantly rural community, our region’s leadership has been 

actively involved in comprehensive planning for many years. With an economy heavily influenced by tourism, the Asheville region has focused on sustaining our communities’ assets while continuing to provide economic opportunities for our residents. In my testimony today, I will offer examples of how the Livable Communities 

Act can support our regional and local initiatives, as well as similar efforts across 

rural America. 

Mr. Chairman, to give you a better understanding of who I represent, it is important to point out that our organization has been in existence since 1966 and is led 

by local elected officials—mayors and county commissioners—as well as representatives from the private sector and minority communities. 

Land-of-Sky Regional Council’s mission, as adopted by the board of directors, is 

to foster desirable social, economic, cultural, and ecological conditions in our fourcounty area. The work of the organization is supported through a variety of funding 

sources, including local, State, Federal, and private investment dollars. 

Specific program services provided to the region’s communities include economic 

and community development planning, environmental planning and implementation, regional transportation planning, housing, land use planning, and aging planning and service delivery. 

I would like to highlight four specific program areas that I feel are relevant to 

the Livable Communities Act and provide you with some background on how our 

small metropolitan and rural communities are already planning for the implementation of this legislation. 

First, Mr. Chairman, within the transportation arena, the Land-of-Sky Regional 

Council serves as the primary planning agency for both the Metropolitan Planning 
46 

Organization (MPO) and the Rural Planning Organization (RPO) in Western North 

Carolina. These entities are partnerships between local and State governments that 

make strategic transportation planning decisions in urban and rural areas and fulfill the planning requirements established by Federal and State authorizing legislation. 

Essentially, our organization is where the ‘‘rubber meets the road’’ in terms of 

making local decisions on which roads are built or improved, what alternative transportation options are available, and how we work together as a region to be more 

self-sustaining with regard to fuel production and consumption. 

Our organization is currently in the process of developing a Long-Range Transportation Plan that will incorporate the livability principles set forth in this legislation. 

This includes increasing transportation choices for our citizens while protecting and 

developing our environmental assets which are important to our mountain communities. 

Second, Mr. Chairman, I believe our Waste Reduction Partners program fits perfectly within the principles set forth in the Livable Communities Act. This program, 

which has been in existence for 18 years, utilizes highly experienced volunteer and 

retired engineers and scientists to provide our businesses, industries and institutions (both public and private) with waste, water, and energy reduction assessments 

and technical assistance. 

This specific program has had an amazing impact on the region’s quality of life, 

including total utility savings costs of more than $23 million and a reduction in 

greenhouse gas emissions of more than 125,000 tons. The program has resulted in 

more than 600 million gallons of water conserved and 200,000 tons of solid waste 

reduced in North Carolina. 

The Waste Reduction Partners program already embraces essential principles of 

sustainability by enhancing our businesses and industries’ economic competitiveness 

while preserving and protecting the beautiful Asheville and surround region’s environment. 

Third, Mr. Chairman, the Livable Communities Act can have significant impact 

on ongoing brownfields redevelopment in rural areas. Brownfield sites are abandoned or underused industrial and commercial facilities available for reuse. Expansion or redevelopment of such a facility may be complicated by real or perceived environmental contaminations. In 2002, Land-of-Sky Regional Council became one of 

the first organizations in a rural area to address brownfields on a regional basis. 

In less than 8 years, our organization, in partnership with the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), has helped turn more than 20 abandoned properties with 

real or perceived environmental impairment into vibrant, working and productive 

properties. 

Since 1992, EPA has invested more than $3.5 million in the Asheville region to 

help our rural communities address environmental challenges and support our region’s economy. The Regional Brownfields Initiative helped transform a vacant mica 

plant in Asheville into 10 affordable residential loft spaces. 

Earlier this year, our region was selected as one of 21 communities nationwide 

to receive an EPA Climate Showcase Communities grant. With this funding, the 

‘‘Reading, Riding, Retrofit’’ program is improving energy efficiency in school buildings and identify alternative transportation choices, it will use ‘‘Green Teams’’ of 

students, teachers and parents to develop an educational program to promote sustainability as an ethic in our school children. 

EPA’s support our region’s growing green economy and is an excellent example 

of how the Livable Communities Act can further enhance our efforts to undertake 

school-based sustainability projects, promote transportation choices and energy efficiency retrofits. 

Fourth, Mr. Chairman, the Economic Development Administration’s (EDA) support of our locally developed and regionally focused economic development planning 

process has helped connect our area’s job creation strategies with fundamental principles for sustainable development. 

In 2007, with funding from EDA, our region’s leadership developed a comprehensive economic development strategy. The strategy identified key challenges to our 

economy and set a course for our region’s future development. Key areas identified 

in the strategy include: 

• Quality, affordable workforce housing 

• Transportation and air quality 

• Reuse and redevelopment 

• Regional growth management planning 

• Clean energy planning 
47 

• Entrepreneurship 

In response to the Livable Communities Act, our region’s leadership modified this 

guiding document to combine our six livability principles with our adopted economic 

development strategies. Our 19 local governments, led by the Land-of-Sky Regional 

Council and the City of Asheville, have joined forces with the region’s chambers of 

commerce, private foundations and nonprofits to initiate the Western North Carolina Livable Communities Initiative. 

Further, in Asheville our local governmental and regional leaders are currently 

in the process of meeting with representatives from HUD, DOT, EPA and five other 

Federal Government agencies to begin working together to implement the sustainable goals that have been embraced by our region. Funding provided by the Livable 

Communities Act is essential to helping our region and other smaller metropolitan 

and rural communities across America provide a bright future for our residents and 

visitors. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would offer that the principles of sustainability and 

livability can be defined in many ways. In Western North Carolina, we are the 

proud home of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians. In their culture, the number seven is a sacred and honored number. The Cherokee Nation describes sustainability as planning and acting in a way to honor and respect the next seven generations. We believe that this legislation is critical in helping honor and respect future 

generations in Western North Carolina’s rural communities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this important legislation. 

I welcome any questions or comments. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LYLE D. WRAY 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CAPITAL REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL COUNCILS

JUNE 9, 2010 

Good morning and thank you, Chairman Dodd, Ranking Member Shelby and distinguished Members of the Committee. I am honored to be before you to testify on 

the vital role the Livable Communities Act would have within communities and regions of all sizes and make ups nationwide, focusing on my region, the Greater 

Hartford, Connecticut, region as one local perspective boasting great opportunity for 

implementation of the Livable Communities Act. 

My name is Lyle Wray and I serve as Executive Director of the Capitol Region 

Council of Governments (CRCOG) in Hartford, Connecticut, and also serve on the 

Executive Directors Council of the National Association of Regional Councils 

(NARC). Today, on behalf of NARC, I am here to demonstrate the need for and 

stress the importance of authorizing the Livable Communities Act to meet the growing demands of communities and regions nationwide. 

The National Association of Regional Councils is a nonprofit trade organization 

that serves as the national voice for regionalism, advocating for multijurisdictional 

cooperation as the most effective way to address community planning and development opportunities and challenges. NARC is governed by local elected officials and 

represents member regional planning organizations composed of multiple local governments that work together to improve America’s communities—large and small, 

urban and rural. Through advocacy and assistance, NARC’s mission is to increase 

funding and authority for all regional councils (RCs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), regardless of their size or location, and to strengthen American 

regions and communities in transportation, economic and community development, 

homeland security, and the environment—integrating fundamental planning and 

implementation functions within these core areas. 

Regional councils deliver an array of Federal, State, and local programs that provide planning support and technical assistance to local governments. The national 

network of regional councils includes organizations such as Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations (MPO), Councils of Government (COG), Rural Planning Organizations 

(RPO), Economic Development Districts (EDD) and Local Development Districts 

(LDD). Regional councils are either created by compact and/or enabling legislation 

or as voluntary consortia of local governments. Our mission is the delivery of services and programs for economic development, first responder and 911, health care, 

infrastructure development, aging services, air and water quality, land-use and 

long-range planning, economic and workforce development, data collection, transportation planning and the coordination of multiple plans into one coordinated, comprehensive plan at a regional level. As such, regional councils are responsible for 

much of the planning and programming of Federal, State, and local dollars. 
48 

NARC’s members, CRCOG included, support Chairman Dodd’s efforts to promote 

‘‘livable communities’’ by creating and maintaining robust Federal investment in locally driven, regionally focused comprehensive regional plans and the implementation of those plans that patch together transportation, the environment, housing and 

economic development opportunities within and among rural and urban, large and 

small communities. In pursuing livability from the Federal perspective, NARC supports the Act’s voluntary, competitive and incentive-based approach to promoting 

comprehensive regional planning and implementation that allows each region to 

meet broad, federally established goals by setting regionally driven objectives based 

on consensus and a shared regional vision. These objectives, initiated by local government and strong public involvement, would be able to address new and existing 

challenges, advance regional collaboration, and leverage a region’s assets to compete 

in a new global economy. Tailored to a region’s needs and composition, livability initiatives generally should seek to highlight a region’s core strengths while coordinating land use, transportation, the environment, energy, economy/economic development, social welfare, housing, and public safety issues—in order to properly balance growth, improve the overall quality of life and maintain vibrant local and regional economies. The Act recognizes and supports this bottom up approach that informs a Federal process and links the cross-purposes of various Federal agencies 

and programs. 

Regional planning organizations like CRCOG are today’s ‘‘boots on the ground’’ 

planners and implementers of tomorrow’s regional infrastructure, economies and opportunities. In order to continue our successful efforts, regional planning organizations need a robust Federal partner, decisive Federal leadership and increased flexibility, funding and resources within Federal programs like what is offered in the 

Livable Communities Act to help make long lasting community investments that 

promote holistic growth and an achievable, sustainable future. 

Mister Chairman, the convergence of a softening economy, declining Federal and 

State funds, rising unemployment, forecasted population growth, increased environmental concerns and the clear need for substantial investments in the country’s infrastructure, communities require a realignment through comprehensive regional 

planning activities that spur livable, sustainable and vibrant communities. The 

question is—how can Congress best direct funding to provide family-wage jobs, 

while stimulating innovation and entrepreneurship, and offering a wealth of crosslinked options within housing, transportation, environment and economic opportunity? One answer is through the authorization and funding of the Livable Communities Act. Let me offer some thoughts on the Act, and CRCOG region as a successful example comprehensive regional planning and implementation progress. 

Capitol Region Council of Governments 

My organization—the Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG)—is one of 

Connecticut’s 15 regional planning organizations. We are established under the authority of the Connecticut General Statutes to serve as voluntary associations of 

local governments and regional planning agencies for our areas of operation. The 

Capitol Region serves the City of Hartford and the 28-surrounding suburban and 

rural communities, with a population of nearly 750,000 people. CRCOG is also the 

MPO for transportation planning purposes under the authority of Federal transportation legislation. The scope of our regional planning activities and programs include the following areas: transportation (including transit, bicycle and pedestrian 

initiatives, and environmental justice), housing, land use, environmental protection, 

open space and farmland preservation, municipal services, and public safety and 

homeland security (including predisaster natural hazard mitigation planning). 

A well-planned, coordinated and comprehensive regional plan supports a strategic 

vision for community and economic development and opportunities, and supports 

more efficient and effective distribution and use of public dollars. We are very excited about the Livable Communities Act, and its potential to forward integrated 

planning and investment decisions in support of sustainable community development. The benefits of such comprehensive and coordinated planning and investment 

are greater choice and convenience for our residents, and socially, economically and 

environmentally strong and vibrant communities. 

In the metropolitan Hartford region, we believe that this program will be particularly useful in helping us move forward with planning for transit oriented development associated with two major transit projects worth about 1.5 billion dollars about 

to implemented here: the New Britain to Hartford Busway, and the New Haven to 

Springfield Commuter Rail. It will also be useful in forwarding planning and redevelopment within other transit corridors in the region, as well as selected sites that 

have good access to on-street bus service. 
49 

1Due to the size of Attachments A through F, they are being held in the Committee’s files. 

To reference them please contact the Committee office. 

CRCOG and some of the communities along these transit corridors have already 

completed preliminary station area plans that focused on conceptual site design and 

assessing market opportunities in proposed station areas, and identifying possible 

strategies to encourage development. We have also worked with towns to develop 

and adopt transit oriented development principles that can be used to guide future 

planning and development. Through our U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) funded MetroHartford Brownfields Assessment Program, we have helped 

communities conduct environmental site assessments and remedial action plans for 

sites near proposed stations, which will be used to assist in municipal and/or private 

redevelopment efforts. We anticipate that Livable Communities Act planning and 

implementation funds can help us move these plans to reality by supporting the integration of planning and development within whole transit corridors, and the development of more detailed station area plans at specific sites. 

The Livable Communities Act acknowledges that coordinated regional and municipal planning is necessary to create strong, sustainable communities. It is the regional, corridor-level planning and coordination that will help us to implement consistent, transit supportive development principles, and consider how the individual 

municipal activities will be related. It will also help guide public investment decisions. But we also need to incorporate the regional planning and principles into the 

municipal level site planning, zoning and subdivision codes that will control how 

land is developed, and how private infrastructure investments are made. Our ultimate goal is to develop regional plans and local zoning codes for mixed use development that will link jobs, affordable and market-rate housing, and pedestrian and 

bicycle systems within a half-mile radius of proposed stations along the new bus 

rapid transit and commuter rail systems—for the economic and social benefit of the 

region as a whole. CRCOG is also studying other transportation corridors within the 

region, and this program will provide an opportunity to apply model codes that better connect a variety of land uses and transportation in other areas where on-street 

bus service, housing and economic development opportunities are closely linked. 

We are also very interested in integrating sustainable design and development 

practices into the development and redevelopment that will likely occur along the 

Hartford-New Britain Busway, the Springfield-New Haven Commuter and HighSpeed Rail Line, and other areas of the region that are well-served by on-street bus 

service and water and sewer infrastructure. 

In 2008, we were fortunate to receive an award of Smart Growth Implementation 

Assistance from the U.S. EPA to explore how the principles of sustainable, mixed 

use development could be incorporated into the Incentive Housing Zones being developed in the region through the Home Connecticut Program, and other community 

planning efforts. The end product of our collaboration with EPA and four of our 

member communities was an interactive workshop and the development four separate reports that speak to how sustainable development guidelines can be applied 

to help towns and developers: 

• Select prosperous smart growth locations for housing and economic development; 

• Implement neighborhood design and placemaking that creates vibrant, walkable 

neighborhoods; and, 

• Apply green infrastructure and energy efficient building techniques to new and 

rehabilitated development, in order to help reduce carbon emissions in the region. 

Attachment A 1 is the introduction and overview of the November 2009 report, 

‘‘Smart Growth Guidelines for Sustainable Design and Development’’, presents 

guidelines for communities in Connecticut and around the country striving to get 

development and future growth that result in stronger neighborhoods, protected 

open space and watersheds, and healthier and more affordable homes. The executive 

summary for its companion report, Attachment B, ‘‘Together We Can Grow Better: 

Smart Growth for a Sustainable Connecticut Capitol Region’’ (December 2009), is a 

guide for small towns, urban centers and metropolitan regions looking for ways to 

grow and develop that respond to changing demographics, market forces and environmental challenges. Both reports can be fully accessed on CRCOG’s Web site. 

During the same time period, we collaborated with the Regional Plan Association 

on another project that looked at what impact changing development patterns within transit corridors can have on reducing carbon emissions. The final report of that 

effort, ‘‘Growing Economy, Shrinking Emissions’’ (2009) (executive summary is At-
50 

tachment C; full report available on CRCOG’s Web site), reinforced the point that 

by developing in a more compact manner within transit corridors, we, as a region, 

can achieve real, positive impacts on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the 5 

percent to 20 percent reduction range. 

We believe that the Livable Communities Act can help us develop models that will 

help towns apply the CRCOG/EPA sustainable development guidelines to projects 

throughout the region—so that we may begin to address our long-term climate 

change goals. 

A fourth report (Attachment D), also available on CRCOG’s Web site, ‘‘From Grey 

to Green: Sustainable Practices for Redeveloping a Vacant Shopping Center’’, provides smart growth and green infrastructure best practices for communities considering greyfield redevelopment using green practices for stormwater management. 

Sustainable Capitol Region 

CRCOG recently created a new Sustainable Capitol Region (Attachment E) initiative whose mission is to ‘‘develop and support integrated regional approaches to 

planning, projects and investments that will promote vibrant, healthy communities, 

protected natural resources and open spaces, equitable access to opportunities and 

an economically competitive Capitol Region to serve all our citizens today, and in 

the future.’’ This initiative ties together the good work already being done by 

CRCOG and others in the areas of community development, transportation, economic development, environmental protection, public safety, homeland security, cooperative purchasing and municipal service sharing. Sustainable Capitol Region will 

provide the umbrella which CRCOG and a diverse range of community partners can 

work together to ensure that our collective planning for and investments in the 

greater Hartford area can be harnessed to create strong, sustainable and livable 

communities. The Livable Communities Act holds great promise for our region, 

through providing much-needed grants to help us better coordinate the planning 

currently underway, as well as funding to implement strategic projects that will ultimately build a more sustainable Capitol Region. 

Authorizing the Livable Communities Act (LCA) 

The authorization of the Livable Communities Act (LCA) is essential, particularly 

in these difficult economic times, for linking proven, cost-effective programs, and reinforcing the efficient investment of Federal resources through comprehensive regional planning and implementation initiatives. These efforts ensure appropriate 

community involvement to coordinate long term planning, and improve organizational effectiveness, stronger environmental management, reduced costs and time to 

complete regional projects, as well as a multitude of other benefits that can drive 

regional economic growth and opportunity. 

Regions are incubators of economic development by drawing on the collective 

strength of cities, counties and towns across a geographic region. CRCOG and its 

fellow regional planning organizations are recognized as experienced partners, consensus builders, community leaders and program managers. We convene local and 

multijurisdictional government leaders with businesses to support rural, suburban 

and urban workforce development activities. We have a proven record for administering local, State, and Federal funds and programs that bolster economic vitality. 

Our organizations develop innovative approaches and replicable practices that support strategic investments for sustainability and growth agendas in the Nation’s 

communities. The LCA would provide the groundwork and Federal commitment to 

further regional and local activities by placing national emphasis on the integration 

of strategic regional transportation, economic, environmental, land use and housing 

planning objectives, breaking down silos, and streamlining processes to encourage 

cross-cutting, regional efforts. 

From our experience, we believe the local government supported network of regional councils like CRCOG, with our broad spectrum of issues and expertise in programming Federal, State, and local funds and services, are a natural vehicle 

through which the Federal Government can realize efficiencies in delivering Federal 

programs. We believe such economies of scale, market penetration and peer-to-peer 

learning that can be achieved on a regional level will strengthen communities and 

help galvanize sustainable community or livability initiatives throughout the country. NARC sees the LCA as helping to advance this, and providing a multitude of 

benefits for citizens, businesses, community stakeholders, local, and State governments, and the Federal Government. Most simply stated, the LCA: 

• Reaffirms the Federal role in regionalism; 

• Helps coordinate regional assistance programs; 

• Provides for Federal interagency coordination and meetings; 
51 

• Assists in determining a Federal livability framework; 

• Is inclusive of regions and local governments of all sizes and make ups; 

• Is voluntary and provides incentives for locally determined sustainable growth 

strategies and activities; 

• Establishes competitive comprehensive regional planning and implementation 

grants; 

• Promotes regional and local cooperation and service sharing; 

• Ensures land-use/zoning requirements do not impede upon local decision-making; and, 

• Provides for transparency, accountability and replicability. 

Under the LCA, a livable community is defined as one that provides safe and reliable transportation choices, and affordable, energy efficient housing; supports public 

health and economic development; and, preserves natural, agricultural, and environmental resources. This broad, malleable definition allows for the Act to fund goals, 

strategies and outcomes that are flexible and locally derived through community 

stakeholder and citizen input. The LCA recognizes that communities of all sizes, 

make ups and capabilities are an important part of the national landscape, economy 

and future. Opportunities offered in the LCA will provide regional planning organizations, local governments, businesses, community groups and citizens alike the resources and collective capabilities to exercise choice in the ways we nurture, enhance and protect our large metropolitan areas, as well as our rural and small communities to ensure the unique characteristics, histories, offerings, and needs and 

wants are preserved for generations to come. 

The LCA could provide critical assistance to communities in areas such as: 

• Economic Development: The LCA provides flexible grant opportunities to stimulate local economic growth. Communities are encouraged to seek out collaborative partnerships across regions, cities, and towns to engage regional economic development strategies that can help direct resources and funding more 

efficiently and effectively throughout a region. The LCA would also support regional economic development initiatives through workforce training and increasing the technology infrastructure of a region (i.e., increased broadband access), 

as rural regions require increased access to jobs, education and training, as well 

as up-to-date technological resources for retaining a strong workforce. 

• Job Creation: The LCA would provide new resources to communities to spur 

economic development, stimulate commercial and industrial growth, attract new 

businesses and jobs, and incentivize innovation. The Act would encourage local 

governments and regions to develop local business and innovation clusters that 

provide industry incentives for entrepreneurship, apprentice and job training 

programs, and job creation; revitalize downtown and historic neighborhoods 

that preserve a community’s identity and historical character, while generating 

new jobs, supporting independent businesses, and creating new economic opportunity; increase access to cultural and entertainment attractions that foster 

community investment and expand tax and investment revenue; and, improve 

transportation options, access and choice that incentivize new business and residential development, and contribute to the overall economic growth of the region. Access to transportation options connects residents to jobs and investment 

to economic opportunity for regional and local businesses. 

• Transportation: The Act would provide competitive granting opportunities that 

support sustainable transit-oriented investment. Transit options are important 

for regions of all sizes, providing residents transportation alternatives. By increasing sustainable multimodal transportation choices, communities can 

incentivize new business and residential development; provide residents greater 

access to jobs, education, and necessary resources; and, contribute to the overall 

economic growth of the region. The flexibility of the LCA allows regions to 

adapt to local transportation needs and plan around a variety of transportation 

options. 

• Environment/Agriculture: The LCA would support projects that clean-up and 

redevelop brownfields, reinforce sustainable agricultural practices, preserve 

open space, rural areas and natural resources, and improve environmental quality and public health. The LCA would encourage local governments and regions 

to create regional food systems that offer new opportunities for commerce and 

growth for local and regional food producers, businesses and related industries, 

while supporting local jobs and food needs that connect urban, suburban and 

rural communities; improve environmental health and management by promoting sustainable practices that are guided by local government-approved, cit-
52 

izen-influenced comprehensive regional planning and implementation; and preserve agricultural land, natural resources, and open space as vital parts of rural 

areas and small towns for economic growth industries such as farming and 

tourism. 

The LCA is also important from Federal policy and programmatic perspectives in 

that it would: 

• Not place mandates on local governments or regions, but would provide a competitive opportunity to engage in Federal funding for comprehensive regional 

planning and implementation; 

• Not have stringent requirements on local governments and regions, but would 

be inclusive and flexible; not be antigrowth, but would support prosperous, 

healthy communities that utilize sustainable land-use strategies through comprehensive regional planning and implementation for future transportation, 

housing, environmental, and economic development that looks at communities 

in a holistic fashion. The LCA encourages programs that make use of existing 

infrastructure and resources, as well as plan for future regional growth, changing demographics and needs; and, 

• Not make exclusions, but would promote comprehensive, inclusive planning that 

is adaptable to local community needs. 

The flexible, inclusive nature of the LCA is key to defining and seeing progress 

due to the fact that local governments and regions around the country are at varying stages of creating livable communities. By respect differing capabilities, geographies, demographics and cultures, the LCA is structured to allow for visionary 

plans and projects that will address local needs and desires. The mutually agreed 

upon decisions of the local governments and community stakeholders developed 

through the regional planning process, and provide choice in achieving common 

goals, while encouraging and incentivizing local planning, procurement and projects 

consistent with approved comprehensive regional plans. NARC views the LCA as a 

first step in patching together multiple Federal, State, local and regional planning 

requirements and investment through incentives that promote holistic approaches 

to establishing livable communities (See, NARC Livability Framework, Attachment 

F). This includes the alignment of timetables, schedules, data and research, plan assumptions and forecasts, interagency consultation and outreach requirements, helping facilitate on-the-ground program linkages that exercise regional approaches to 

development. 

Conclusion 

More than ever, regional planning organizations—urban and rural alike—are the 

conduit by which local governments can save money and time, while achieving concrete and visionary results through the pooling resources and development of integrated solutions to some of our biggest challenges. Now is the time for the Federal 

Government bolster its commitment and assistance to regional efforts by encouraging multijurisdictional work through incentives, flexibility, streamlining and direct funding to our local governments and their regional planning organizations. 

The Livable Communities Act is vitally needed in communities and regions nationwide to help restore economic prosperity and foster partnerships and innovative 

practices that make all of our counties, cities, towns, townships, villages and boroughs great places to live, play, work, and invest. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of NARC and giving me the opportunity to highlight some of the accomplishments and exemplary work of my region. 

NARC offers its support and assistance to ensure the Livable Communities Act is 

firmly incorporated into future Congressional work. We look forward to working 

with Chairman Dodd and the Members of this Committee to progress Federal enactment of policies, programs and funding that assist communities and regions in 

achieving their unique visions of livable communities through the cross-pollination 

of planning, program areas and services, linking community needs to smart, sustainable growth. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JULIA W. GOUGE 

PRESIDENT, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND, ON

BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES

JUNE 9, 2010 

Chairman Dodd, Ranking Member Shelby, and Members of the Banking, Housing, 

and Urban Affairs Committee. My name is Julia Gouge, and I am President of the 
53 

Carroll County Board of Commissioners, Member of the National Association of 

Counties’ (NACo) Board of Directors; Environment, Energy and Land Use Steering 

Committee; and Rural Action Caucus. I thank you for the opportunity to testify at 

this important hearing on the Livable Communities Act, S. 1619. It is my privilege 

to represent NACo and our President, Sonoma County, CA, Supervisor Valerie 

Brown here today. We appreciate Chairman Dodd’s commitment to ensuring rural, 

midsize and urban communities can benefit from The Livable Communities Act. 

NACo, the only national organization representing America’s 3,068 counties, supports the Livable Communities Act, which provides incentive grants to local areas 

for regional planning around housing, transportation, environmental, energy, land 

use and health initiatives. NACo has long advocated for flexibility, regionalism, and 

direct funding to local governments and regions as proven methods for enhancing 

communities. NACo believes that sustainability initiatives are most effective when 

they are multijurisdictional and involve multidimensional collaborations across communities of all sizes. Last year, NACo passed a resolution supporting Senator 

Dodd’s legislation and we appreciate his and the Committee’s leadership on sustainable issues. 

Rural, suburban and urban counties have been pursuing local strategies to create 

livable communities and implement sustainable development for decades. NACo has 

worked to support our members in achieving sustainable development for more than 

15 years through assistance on issues including smart growth and planning; sustainable economic development and business retention; improving citizen health 

through obesity prevention initiatives and promoting active living; as well as increasing efficiency and transparency in development; and in housing and home-ownership opportunities. NACo’s initial efforts in the mid 1990s focused on city—county 

collaborations and priorities now include clean energy development and disaster resiliency. 

In July 2010, at NACo’s Annual Conference, the first draft of a member survey 

on County Sustainability Efforts will be released and the final publication will be 

unveiled in the Fall of 2010. Considering the diverse set of sustainability strategies 

now available to America’s counties, NACo is undertaking this effort to better define, prioritize, and more fully assess the landscape of county sustainability strategies. 

More specifically, the survey will capture counties’ differing levels of sustainability knowledge, interest, commitment, and barriers to the development of specific 

sustainability goals—including energy efficiency, renewable energy generation, 

water conservation, green job creation, and integrated waste management. 

NACo also began the Green Government Initiative in 2007 to provide comprehensive resources for local governments on all things green. The NACo Green Government Initiative is a: 

• hub for county leadership on all things green, 

• public/private partnership to provide information, training and assistance to 

counties, and 

• catalyst to facilitate county green policies, practices, and products that result 

in financial and environmental savings. 

We have focused on a variety of topics including: 

• Energy efficient buildings 

• High mileage and alternatively fueled fleets 

• Environmentally preferable purchasing 

• Waste management and recycling 

• Water quality and conservation 

• Land use and conservation 

• Climate protection and adaptation and 

• Community sustainability 

The priorities for 2010 are: 

• Cost-Saving Strategies through ‘‘going green’’ 

• Energy Efficiency and Clean Energy, especially implementation of the Energy 

Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant 

• Green Jobs and the Local Economy and 

• Local food supply and community gardening 

In May 2010, NACo’s Green Government Initiative completed a new guidebook on 

the role counties can play in growing their local green economies. ‘‘Growing a Green 
54 

Local Economy: County Strategies for Economic, Workforce and Environmental Innovation’’ serves as a resource for counties interested in assessing the unique attributes of their local green economy and tapping into its tremendous potential. 

Planning for sustainable communities is by its nature a regional effort. Counties 

are unique in that they are at their core a regional form of government, especially 

in rural America. Whether acting individually, with neighboring jurisdictions, or 

through regional councils, counties have the primary role in land-use planning and 

economic development decisions that impact and determine the growth, development 

and livability of communities. 

However, many counties, especially rural and midsize counties would like to begin 

sustainable planning and development but lack the resources to do so. Many other 

counties have developed strong sustainability plans, but need extra funding to implement. Chairman Dodd’s legislation will be effective because it meets communities 

where they are—at the planning or implementation stage. Also, the grants are 

available to meet the needs of counties of all sizes, including rural ones. 

In my county of Carroll County, MD, population of 175,000 through regional planning and innovative partnerships we have created three LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Certified Green Buildings. These buildings are oriented for site optimum natural day lighting and solar control; solar heating for domestic water; occupancy sensors for lighting; extensive storm water management 

structures; geothermal mechanical systems; and the use of high-recycled content 

materials such as steel, carpet, acoustical ceiling panels, drywall and concrete. To 

help reduce our carbon footprint, we have also invested in the purchase of hybrid 

cars for our fleet, as well as hybrid vans for our local transportation system. 

Carroll County is one of the 21 governmental entities participating in the ‘‘Energy 

Management Initiative,’’ provided through partnership with the Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC). In Fiscal Year 2009, Carroll County estimated an electricity 

savings from BGE of $900,000. Carroll is an active participant on the regional Sustainability Council of the BMC, which promotes coordinated policies amongst the regional jurisdictions to: realize smarter, more efficient energy purchases and utilization; share best practices relating to sustainable growth and development; and, 

adopt model alternative energy and sustainability plans from successful examples 

gained from other metro areas. We are also actively participating in the regional 

‘‘Vision 2060’’ effort which is a long-term visioning exercise being conducted by the 

BMC. The effort is designed to develop long term plans for transportation alternatives in the Baltimore metro area—fifty years in the future. The BMC member 

jurisdictions hope to create a plan that will place sustainability and livability at the 

top of the future priorities list (i.e., expanded transit system, reduction of single occupant vehicles on crowded roadways, and reduction in vehicle miles travelled, by 

promoting efficient land use and development). 

In an effort to preserve our rural history, Carroll County has implemented an Installment Purchase Agreement (IPA) for farm preservation. This program allows us 

to purchase development rights, by leveraging our money, so that we can buy more 

land at today’s prices. To date, we have placed over 60,000 acres into permanent 

agricultural preservation. 

NACo continues to believe that sustainability should be voluntary and encouraged 

through a Federal grant program that rewards regions and communities that undertake sustainable programs, like what is proposed in the Livable Communities Act. 

We do not believe that sustainability should be a condition for receiving housing, 

transportation and other traditional sources of Federal funding. 

We believe that all communities should be eligible for the program. Under the initial proposed legislation, some rural and remote communities would not have been 

eligible. We support a fix that would set aside funds for a subcategory of rural areas 

that are not part of an otherwise eligible micropolitan area. 

These rural communities have undertaken sustainable development projects at a 

scale that is realistic based on resource and geography constraints. These communities represent the majority of the Nation’s land mass and should play a critical 

role in Federal efforts to encourage sustainable development. For example, only 122 

counties have populations over 500,000. About 180 counties fall in the 200,000 to 

500,000 population range and 2,835 counties (over 90 percent) have populations 

below 200,000. 

NACo’s Rural Action Caucus (RAC) advocated for passage of the Livable Communities Act during their recent legislative fly-in on April 28, 2010. Also, Brookings 

County, SD, Commissioner Don Larson, Chair of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs 

Committee and member of RAC spoke at the Senate briefing on The Livable Communities Act Rural Benefits on April 30, 2010. RAC is the voice for America’s rural 

counties in Washington. It is a bipartisan coalition of rural elected officials, who 

strive to enhance the quality of life in rural counties through effective Federal legis-
55 

lation. The caucus is not only the advocacy arm of the organization, but also serves 

as the conduit for technical and programmatic assistance through the NACo County 

Services Department. 

The legislation also creates the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities 

to coordinate Federal policies and initiatives on livable communities which will provide information on best practices and technical assistance. The U.S. Department 

of Urban Development has already started such an office and has grant money 

available for Fiscal Year 2010 on sustainable planning. The bill would also formally 

establish the Interagency Council on Sustainable Communities, a partnership between U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation and 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). NACo supports HUD taking the lead on breaking down silos within the Federal Government and Senator 

Dodd’s legislation supporting these efforts. 

NACo believes it is the right time for passage of the Livable Communities Act because of the difficult economic and fiscal environment in our counties, and the pressure of new social, economic and environmental imperatives. The goal of sustainability compels all levels of government to regroup, and to demand innovative multijurisdictional, multidimensional and fiscally sound approaches that will lead to better transportation choices, equitable and affordable housing, social equity and enhanced opportunities for our communities. 

When Federal funding is involved, efforts at integrated local and regional planning are often hindered by the States when funds are not granted directly to local 

governments. Therefore, NACo appreciates that the bill allows local entities to receive funding directly. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We look forward to working with Chairman Dodd and other Members as this legislation moves forward to ensure that 

small metro and rural communities are active participants along with urban ones. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 
56 

Attachment 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR VITTER 

FROM JULIA W. GOUGE 

Q.1. Within HUD, there already exists the Office of Community 

Planning and Development, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal 

Opportunity, as well as the Office of Housing. Also, there are several other governmental programs such as Community Development Block Grant Programs, Rural Housing and Economic Development Programs, and Brownfields Economic Development Initiative. How do you feel the Livable Communities Act differs from the 

goals of these programs that already exist? 

A.1. Goals of the Livable Communities Act differ from goals of the 

above agencies, in that the Livable Communities Act is not limited 

to population or income levels. The Livable Communities Act would 

address potential environmental contamination, and would improve 

fair housing opportunities. 

I have asked our grants office to create a chart showing the comparison between the Livable Communities Act and programs that 

our county is currently using. I would be happy to share that information, if you so wish. 

Q.2. This legislation will cost the taxpayer $4 billion over the next 

3 years in grant allocations alone, let alone the cost it takes to establish two new bureaucracies within the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development. How would you suggest the Congress, as 

good stewards of taxpayer money, plan on funding the new Government programs formed by this legislation? 

Will two new bureaucracies mean that those agencies would coordinate all other agencies listed above, so that people would only 

have two agencies to converse with or not? 

A.2. Counties with populations under 50,000 are hindered due to 

the amount of staff time and development cost required to research, conduct studies and perform engineering and design required to develop grant applications. Smaller counties would have 

a better opportunity to apply for competitive grants, with a simplified grant application to one agency, rather than four to six different agencies. A direct reporting system from county level to Federal level and back again, would simplify things and cut out the 

middle man. 

If the Federal Government would like to see sustainable communities thriving with innovative energy projects, and livable communities that will help the environment, and the people living within 

them, it will need to step in and make it happen. The bottom line 

is, local governments do not have the finances or staff time required to apply for grants. If the process is complicated, if it deals 

with a number of agencies, and if duplicate reporting systems are 

required, those counties do not have the time to make it happen. 

Small counties need to stay focused on the immediate needs of 

their community. The Federal Government can help communities 

make real improvements to quality of life if they offer funding and 

technical assistance during the application and implementation 

phase of the process. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. I thank you once 

again for allowing us to testify on the Livable Communities Act. 

We look forward to working with you in the future. 
71 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE RECORD
72