Does Your State’s Five Year Land Use Plan Consider You?

This may be one of the most important editorials you ever read.

Whatever state you live in, chances are that land use decisions are being made without your knowledge—decisions that can have a deleterious and harmful effect on infrastructure, housing, the environment and global warming.

Our own state has a five year plan that can change the life style of all the people who have moved here to retire, or just enjoy the fresh air and clean water.

But what none of us anticipated is a surging population, over development, a lack of infrastructure and an impact on the environment that just may kill the Golden goose…

In our own case, a disparate group of ten or more different organizations realized that if we didn’t act, and act promptly, we would have no say in a five year plan that did not represent our best interests.

I pass this along to you as a cautionary note so that you don’t fall victim to your state’s own five year plan that considers the needs of the polls, the developers, the government—everyone except the needs of the people!

Here’s my open letter to the powers that be:



An Open Letter to Land Use Planners and concerned citizens:

I was invited to take part in the Comprehensive Land Use planning meeting last week in Dover because of prior backgrounds in activism and planning.. I was surprised to discover that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan has not generated as much discussion or debate as one might imagine considering that the plan covers land use and related considerations that will impact the future of Sussex County. I am also quite disappointed in the lack of editorial coverage of the subject which is of so much importance to those of us who call Sussex County home.

Nevertheless, between a dozen and twenty activist groups representing a broad cross section of people living in Sussex County and concerned about the subject matter of the plan and its inclusiveness, did manage to show up. Mostly, they were concerned about the plan’s failure to discuss or treat in detail subjects like high density building that has resulted in overcrowding, challenges posed by air and water problems, inadequate infrastructure and other environmental concerns of the County that many believe are not adequately being addressed in the plan..

Interestingly, during the committee session no time was afforded to any of those considerations—it seemed simply like a pro-forma presentation designed to expedite acceptance; not as an opportunity for questioning or fine-tuning said plan. At the end of the meeting, a spokesperson for the various citizen groups requested ten minutes to make a statement and even that had to be approved as an “exception” by the Lieutenant Governor.

The lack of critical discussion of the various points of the “plan” was surprising and disappointing. It should have been viewed as an opportunity, at the very least, to make sure that the plan was the best it could be. But that wasn’t the case.. This is too important, I thought, to be relegated to rubber stamp consideration. Our government should be better than that.

What most of us were witness to was a “trust me” kind of scenario with large gaps and no critical analysis.

As a consequence of these factors, what we are left with is a plan that most of us don’t know, don’t understand and can’t equate with the need. Part of that has to do with the fact that there has been very little effort made to make the plan a document that enlightens, that derives from fundamental needs and is replete with the features that most of us would agree is fundamental to a sound plan.

Without discussion, without debate, without explanation, one could easily assume that said document could easily be misinterpreted for a distraction that limits discussion on the critical issues of overcrowding, a lack of infrastructure, poor air and water quality and the scientific issues surrounding global warming that virtually every scientist has said is something that concerned citizens in coastal communities must consider.


In this entire plan, nowhere does it say that the reason people come to Delaware in the first place for air, water and less crowding. . Overdevelopment, as sure as night follows day, without adequate planning, will reverse the past progress the State has made and kill the Golden Goose, turning Southern Delaware into a thousand other places that are trying to find their way back from unplanned overdevelopment. This is the unwritten scenario that accompanies this document..


. What the local pols have failed to consider is that good, realistic planning that provides for green areas and infrastructure is actually GOOD for the long term interests of the County and the area.

As a planner who usually tends to deal with business and industry plans, I was asked to participate at the review of the updated Land Use Plan for Sussex County at the meeting in Dover on the 12th of December.

As a result of that meeting, I came away with the following fundamental observations:

Aside from the fact that a goodly amount of work has been involved in selling us on a document that poses as a plan, there are critical gaps in content and explanation that detracts from the aims and purposes of a serious plan.

The Plan, per se, is not really a plan but a document full of explanatory charts and statistics; it is a weighty compendium of information that seems to suggest that the County and the State have taken the initiative in doing everything possible to conform to the Green Delaware plan with green areas, protected marshlands, and all of the elements that will continue to help the County grow in the right direction.

But if they arrived at that assumption, they would be wrong.

Because there is nothing in the plan that tells us that objectively, analytically and with the appropriate justification. Therefore, we are left with a questionable document that has neglected traditional plan elements that provides all of the detail needed to make an objective analysis; therefore, because it does not incorporate the fundamental elements of a plan, that it is missing most analyses and justification, goals, priorities, an assessment of current condition, methodologies, milestones, lines of responsibility, it is less a plan and more a document of fact.

The litmus test being that if we are put to the test, how do we know that the ‘actions’ spelled out in this document are in our best interests? And what is the connection of all of the data to the targeted objectives? How does this data suit our objectives? And what does it all mean?

Part of this has to do with the layout and design of the document which to many seems largely difficult to follow or understand nor well thought out as to what constitutes the logic and comprehensibility of a coherent plan.

A good plan does not attempt to obfuscate, but clarify so that all participants—whether new to the process or otherwise—can read the plan and find themselves on the same page… Anything less intimates an ulterior motive

A good plan should connect the dots; it should carry a reader forward from the mission, objectives, methodologies, milestones, timelines, etc. through to the conclusions without having to use guesswork

PLANS are supposed to be more than an agglomeration of “actions” taken for an unclear end that is not satisfactorily explained…


It would seem to this casual observer, that the “plan” should go beyond listing discrete (separate and independent) purchases. These are listed with no accompanying references or information; therefore, we, the readers, are expected to intuit how each “action” satisfies the goals of the plan; or why each action was made or included in the first place; or somehow divine how and why that action was made instead of other actions; nor does it explain how each specific “action” satisfies the overall objective—we may not be able to answer that in any case but an effort should be made; otherwise, we are left with the perception that our government officials are saying this is the plan, take it or leave it.

This “wild, wild west” approach to planning, per se, which seems to have largely infected County politics, may satisfy the tyro planner, but in reality, it does not begin to meet the needs of the concerned citizen and voter; in this case, one cannot help feel that you are supposed to buy into what the plan says is being effectuated, without understanding why. .

More specifically, there are no justifications, no rationales; no explanations to enhance understanding; there is no way to say suggest that if b follows a that c should follow b; that is not clarified to the satisfaction of the reader—especially the first time reader leading us to wonder what scheme does this plan follow?

Most plans seem to evolve from a specific need or set of needs; a mission statement or set of goals followed by a rationale; in this case, it was the generic case of setting aside land, which by itself does not seem a bad thing, but what it accomplishes and how it fits into a larger purpose is not clarified and, thusly, is suspect of being a smoke screen that conceals the overcrowding, and other problems that will face the county over the life of the plan.

The “plan” would have been more meaningful if it flowed out of defined “needs”; nor was any effort made to explain this critical omission….What are the needs?; What are the priorities?---that is never clarified and these should be established and explained among the very first pages of a coherent plan

A typical plan begins with the goals that evolve from “needs” and then go on to establish hierarchal priorities….Looking at this “plan,” it is virtually impossible to find the linkages to the appropriate questions…

The next step in many plans then is to list “how” and “when”--the methodologies essential to accomplishing the plan and a time line for its accomplishment; without a time line, there is just drift. Why wasn’t this sounder, scientific approach adopted instead of just listing property actions and maps?

It would have been additionally helpful had the authors provided milestones along the way so that progress could be charted.

The methodologies should focus on strategies and tactics which seem to be totally missing here; how specifically do we intend to achieve said objectives along what timeline and why?

Nor did we find any indication of responsibilities: Who was responsible for each step in the plan? A plan should have direct line responsibilities. If goals are not met according to the plan, there should be a reason. There is no evidence that that is the case here.

This agglomeration of facts also doesn’t inform the reader of how much each “action” fulfills the goals and objectives of the plan; without such detail, the plan is little more than just a listing of actions taken on behalf of a plan that is not fully realized.

Nor should a plan be treated as if it is cast in concrete; change is a vital part of day to day living and provision for change should be included in the document; if there are new opportunities, new challenges, they should be allowed for in any meaningful document that is supposed to remain viable over time… I didn’t see any reference to that fact or provision for such actions…

A comprehensive land use plan for Sussex should take into consideration local, state and other needs…whether it does or not is not made clear

Nor is a rationale for setting aside land to meet certain priorities explained; it is nice to set aside land for green areas but in what context; what does it mean in terms of satisfying a real need? Will we be better off for it?

A comprehensive plan should include the current challenges ranging from global warming to clean air and clean water

More specifically, the plan should consider the challenges facing Sussex-- from a lack of infrastructure to a way to deal with population growth, ie. better highways, improved sewers and better quality water

It should also deal with the fact that with an ageing population, it should incorporate planning to build business and industry in the southern part of the State…

At the same time, it should incorporate ways to assure that vacation-seekers and retirees who have made Sussex the fastest growing county continue to see Delaware as a good place to live; this would mean preserving those things that attracted outsiders to move to Delaware in the first place—like good air and clean water….

The failure of the present document to connect the dots so that reading it allows you to see how the need is being fulfilled according to realistic goals and expectations detracts from the plan’s objective value and creates a kind of fuzziness gap that seems to be amplified when it comes to specific actions. Why are they being taken? What do they mean as previously stated….

These are mainly preliminary observations and reflect concerns by concerned citizens that not enough thought or vision is evidenced from what is currently passing as a plan that will impact what happens in Sussex over the next five years. With the multiplicity of challenges we face, not enough credit is given to this document as a living piece of legislation that will set the tone for the next five years. It seems that there is a real need for a permanent commission to rework priorities according to the need of the County, the State and even Federal objectives and view the document, per se, as a changing document that operates off of priorities that have yet to be defined and solutions yet to be envisioned.

Despite the wealth of statistics, charts and the use of color and fancy presentation, it is a document that not only lacks vision, it is inadequate to the goal intended. .

Les Aaron-Friedlieb
The Committee for Positive Change