Do you use the APA MN website for any of the following items?: Please check all that apply. |
Answer Options |
Response Percent |
Response Count |
To access the events calendar |
57.0% |
154 |
To view discussion topics |
37.8% |
102 |
To participate in discussion topics |
10.0% |
27 |
To view the spotlight community |
23.3% |
63 |
To access committee and board agendas/minutes |
4.8% |
13 |
To view job postings |
58.1% |
157 |
To read the APA MN monthly newsletter |
85.9% |
232 |
To view legislative updates |
38.5% |
104 |
To read board member profiles |
7.8% |
21 |
To access other information |
13.0% |
35 |
I do not use the website |
3.3% |
9 |
answered question |
270 |
skipped question |
0 |
Would you suggest any changes to the website? Please check all that apply. |
Answer Options |
Response Percent |
Response Count |
No changes or needed |
55.6% |
133 |
Needs to be more user friendly |
14.2% |
34 |
Needs to be more visually pleasing |
15.1% |
36 |
Not enough information is posted |
6.3% |
15 |
Too much information is posted |
1.3% |
3 |
Information needs to be updated more frequently |
14.2% |
34 |
Needs more planning related material (news, journals, etc.) |
19.7% |
47 |
Other improvements are needed |
4.6% |
11 |
answered question |
239 |
skipped question |
31 |
- Generally the recent court decision re: variances seem to have upset many planners who apparently liked the flexlibility and discretion provided. But there needs to be criteria/standards for granting variances -- otherwise they are open to political manipulation and denigrate the whole process of land use regulation. Except for this, I tend to agree with the Chapter's legislative initiatives |
- As a chapter, we of course must support the national APA positions. I don't always agree with the national position, though! |
- I believe more input should have gone into the variance bill. A change was needed to allow cities to issue variances but now the language seems way too lenient and I feel that cities may be in the position of having to be forced to grant variances in situations where it really is not in the best interest of the city. |
- I disagree with the Chapter's position on variances. Having worked as a planning and zoning administrator for both cities and townships/counties, I did not have issues with the enabling legislation for variances. We used the approach of clearly defining what was required/prohibited in the ordinances, and further reviewed areas that we found we were receiving significant levels of variance applications. Then we revised those areas to remove the need for variances if it was deemed acceptable and legal by the community and legal staff. |
- I do not agree with the MnAPA position on the variance matter. |
- I know some people feel it is not our role to weigh in on legislative issues. I think it's appropriate. |
- I tend to be much more in favor of maintaing personal property rights over the rights of a government unit. |
- I think that the chapter needs to be cautious as it enters into legislative matters. Offering general information about planning, and informing members about current legislative items of interest is appropriate. Taking positions on specific bills may be something that warrents more discussion and may not be suited for an organization of this type. Overall, I do think it is important for the chapter to follow state policy issues and to educate members about what is going on. |
- It's not that I disagree, I am just not well aware of what the positions are. |
- Just unfamiliar, not necessarily in disagreement. |
- need to be less politically partisan |
- Need to keep in mind consideration for the views of ALL planners--we don't necessarily agree with each other. |
- The Legislative Committee has never before been so active and at such a high level of commuication with the Chapter Membership. This is an excellent service to the membership and I look forward to maintaining this improved standard. What great things are next on the horizon? |
- The Legislative Committee has the approach to Variances all wrong. I couldn't disagree more with their approach. |
- The position taken by the Chapter relative to variance legislation changes was flawed. I was taken aback when iI discovered how variance legislation was actually administered at the local level. The past proctive undermines solid planning and the corresponding need for effective regulation in support of planning goals. |
- This is a good start: http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/3/2/coding-for-planner-gods.html |
