Laserfiche WebLink
the last three sessions. This disagreement between highway advocates (mainly rural) <br />and transit advocates (mainly metro) has resulted in inadequate binding for both <br />highways and transit. Everyone loses! <br />3. Land Use Rcgulation/Urban Service Area Expansion <br />I jinH Use Regulation and development sprawl could also be issues during the 1996 sessio^ <br />Bills were introduced in the 1995 session that would have virtually frozen the MUSA line in <br />its current configuration. While perhaps weU intentioned. these bills provided no controls <br />beyond the 7-coundes and preventing growth widiin the metro area would almost surely lead^ <br />to more development in adjacent Counties which would exacerbate the sprawl situation The <br />developers and realtors are also suggesting that unreaso na ble local controls are die mjor <br />of housing costs in developing communities and are quiedy suggesting more <br />oversight of local land use regulatory authority at either the metro or state level. The Met <br />is fifn sponsoring a study of the cost allocation system for the rnetropolitan <br />wastewater treatment system which could lead to the return of a sub-regional cost allocation <br />system that could produce some tension. <br />While somewhat indirect, there b a relationship between all thee Issue and concerns <br />and they could ’’come together** at the Legblature. How should the AMM, with <br />rs on all side of these issues, proceed policy wise for the 1996 aesdon?I r-^ 111