Since that meeting, I have received emails with updates on the progress. The problem is that it is difficult to follow or carry on discussions with emails going back and forth from different people.
I replied to everyone on the list and invited him or her to use this board to communicate. Using this board is far more efficient than emails, It would give everyone a better understanding of the process and help individual communities to determine whether Joint Zoning is good for them or not.
Equally important, it would provide information to the public and provide for their input. While this process is ongoing, the people that will be affected the most are the public. Up until now, the people living in the various communities have little or no knowledge that this is happening.
The purpose of this discussion is to put all the cards on the table. Present the facts so the community leaders can make informed decision. Make information available to the people that they serve and do what is in their best interest.
I would encourage everyone to get involved for the betterment of your community.
Joint Zoning appears to be working in some communities. However, it is too early to determine the long-term effects. At the same time, many communities have looked at Joint Zoning and determined that it was not in their best interest.
Below is a partial list of the pros and cons of Joint Zoning. However, each community needs to look at their own individual needs.
- Municipalities do not need to provide for every type of use individually but may provide for them collectively.
- Zoning regulations are uniform; that is, each municipality regulates land uses in the same manner.
- The economic base in the downtowns and villages may be preserved by reserving specific commercial uses for these areas and reducing the ability of competing activities to locate in other areas.
- Boroughs may be preserved by eliminating the need to allow incompatible land uses to locate within borough limits.
- Rural areas may be preserved by eliminating the need to provide higher density or intensity land uses that would be more suited for boroughs, villages and urban centers.
- The cost of infrastructure may be reduced by concentrating high intensity and dense use in fewer areas.
- Municipal and administrative and enforcement activities and costs may be reduced if one entity is chosen to provide this service for several municipalities.
- Barriers to communication will be reduced for the development community by having fewer sets of regulations within the region.
- Perception of giving up individual identity and losing municipal boundaries.
- Reaching consensus on regulatory language.
- Organizing a fair and equitable review, administration, and enforcement system.
- Limited history of use in Pennsylvania.
- Sharing tax revenues and establishing a legal framework.