The Second Regular Session of 109th Nebraska Legislature convened on January 7 and officially adjourned sine die (legislative speak for adjourned with no planned date for resumption) on April 17. Top of mind for elected officials was the budget, however several positive bills also managed to make their way through to signing, along with a few concerning bills. Below is a summary of the bills APA Nebraska’s Legislative Committee was tracking and their outcomes. While all bills died the day the legislature adjourned, it doesn’t mean the bill won't be reintroduced next session.

Vetoed by Governor:

• LB839: Requires metropolitan, primary, and first class cities with a population of at least 20,000 to identify the number of multifamily housing units constructed in their corporate limits since January 2, 2021 and the number of such units that were designed and constructed in accordance with the accessibility requirements of the federal Fair Housing Act in their July 1 affordable housing report; Prohibits NDED from approving a multifamily rental project for assistance from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund unless at least 5% of the project’s units are accessible for people with mobility impairments and 2% are accessible for people with hearing or vision impairments.

Passed” All of the following bills will take effect July 16, 2026.

• LB883: Amended the definition of historic building or district under the Civic and Community Center Financing Act to mean any property (instead of building) that is determined by SHPO eligible for the National Register of Historic places or local landmark designation. The bill also relaxed rules to allow demolition of property, not limited to substandard and abandoned buildings, but requires documentation showing preservation-based mitigation strategies have been agreed to by the SHPO.

• LB1067: Removed the ability to transfer Affordable Housing Trust Fund money to other funds after July 1, 2027. The bill also increased the stamp tax from $2.32 to $3.32 until January 1, 2032. The bill also reallocates percentages of that money. Many communities rely on this funding and therefore it's important to protect.

• LB663: A carry over bill that requires education for members of county planning commissions and county boards and changes provisions relating to conditional use or special exception determinations by county planning commissions and county boards.

• LB852: Requires the recipient of money from the Convention Center Support Fund to maintain its principal place of business or primary operations within the area with a high concentration of poverty for at least three years following the funding. Failure to do so would result in a recapture of the funding. 

• LB1114: This was a major Christmas tree bill with seven bills rolled into it. It changes provisions of expedited review under the Community Development Law to reduce the amount of time a structure needs or vacant platted lot or nonconforming lot of record to be in the corporate limits from 60 years to 25; Allows use of TIF in under developed parcels that have been in the ETJ for more than 25 years; Requires housing agencies in metropolitan cities to submit annual reports on pest control management and evictions and complaints filed during the reporting period as well as allows metropolitan cities to regulate any housing agency; Increases the number of inland port districts from five to eight and revises edibility requirements for counties; Allows metropolitan and primary cities to use Local Option Municipal Economic Development (LB 840) funds for certain housing projects; Updates requirements for SIDs; Creates Community Improvement Districts for the construction, maintenance, and repair of public infrastructure; Creates the New Taxpayer Recruitment Grant to incentivize households to relocate to Nebraska.

No Movement (dies in session):

• LB740: Proposes to create the Housing First Supportive Services Act and Fund. This would direct the Department of Health and Human Services to seek federal approval to authorize Medicaid reimbursement for supportive housing services under a housing first program. This is generally a positive program for supporting housing and services for low income households.

• LB811: Proposes to allow all municipalities in Nebraska, regardless of their classification, to establish a land bank.

• LB850: Proposes to amend the Local Option Municipal Economic Development Act (LB840) to allow an economic development program to also include for any municipality funds for construction or rehabilitation for sale or lease of housing (a) for persons of low or moderate income, (b) as part of a workforce housing plan, or (c) as part of an affordable housing action plan as well as for any municipality a business that derives its principle source of income from the construction or rehabilitation of housing.

• LB1045:Proposes to create the Nebraska Public Housing Preservation Trust Act. The Trust's purpose would be to serve as a financing and rehabilitation entity and oversee major capital improvements to public housing in Nebraska.

• LB819: Proposes to amend the definition of workforce housing to increase the construction cost from $325,000 to $375,000 for owner occupied and $250,000 to $300,000 for rental housing units. This is generally just keeping in line with increasing costs.

• LB840: Proposes to limit the Department of Economic Development's ability to use Nebraska Affordable Housing Act assistance on multifamily housing projects unless (a) at least 20% of the units will be accessible for persons with mobility impairment and (b) at least 10% of the units will be accessible for persons with hearing or vision impairments.

• LB1041: Proposes to require cities to allow at least one accessory dwelling unit on the same lot as a single-family residence with some conditions including the size of the ADU and if historic buildings, deed restrictions or HOA restrictions exist. The bill also limits the restrictions a city can place on the ADU. APANE recognizes the balance between pre-emption of cities as well as the need to build more housing quickly and therefore remains neutral.

• LB1098: Proposes to adopt the State Rail Plan Act.

• LB1129:Proposes to amend the Community Development Law to extend the ability to declare an area blighted and substandard to the existence of underdeveloped parcels that have been within a community's ETJ for more than 25 years and adds development of such an area to the definition of a redevelopment project. The bill also proposes to amend the definition of extreme blight to reduce the percentage of unemployment from 200% to 150%, decrease the average poverty rate from 20% to 15%, and adds the provision that extreme blight could also be a substandard and blighted area that has a higher-than-average unemployment rate and higher-than-average poverty rate when compared to the rest of the state using any data available if the governing body deems the federal data unreliable or lacking for the area in question.

• LB1204: Adopt the Nameplate Capacity Tax Facility Standards Act and change provisions relating to property tax exemptions and the nameplate capacity tax. This limits zoning to certain setbacks from wind, solar and battery storage to 1 and 1/10th times the height for wind and 200 feet for solar from neighboring occupied dwellings walls, not property lines, walls. It also limits property valuations for renewable energy projects. APANE recognizes the balance between pre-emption of cities as well as the need to build more renewable energy projects.

• LB809: Proposes to prohibit local governments from having the power to regulate a landlord's ability to refuse to lease or rent a privately owned single family, multi family, or commercial property to a person because that person's lawful source of income to pay rent includes funding from a federal or other housing assistance program. The Chapter has concerns over fair housing compliance issues and source of income discrimination that this bill would impact.

• LB925: Proposes to adopt the Safe Parks and Public Spaces Act, which would make it unlawful for any person to knowingly camp on public property or right-of-way not designated for such action. The bill also authorizes residents or business owners of the county to bring a lawsuit against a political subdivision that does not enforce these regulations. If a political subdivision is found in violation, the State Treasurer shall suspend distribution of state funds designated for addressing housing or homelessness to that political subdivision. Funds withheld for six months or longer shall be forfeited and returned to the General Fund. This bill is contrary to APA National's priorities on decriminalizing homelessness.

• LB988: Proposes to amend the Community Development Law to change the definition of blight and generally reduce the ability to use this economic development bill. This bill would be especially damaging to western Nebraska communities.

• LB1094: Proposes to adopt the By-Right Housing Development Act which would require cities to approve all proposed housing developments that meet the criteria outlined in the applicable zoning codes and land use regulations by right without discretionary review or approval by a planning commission, zoning board, or other regulatory authority. The bill also allows an applicant who has been denied the right to appeal to district court. Further, the bill also proposes to adopt the Permitting Approval Timeliness Act which requires a permitting authority to process permit applications in a timely manner and render a decision within 75 days after its submission. This bill takes away local review without streamlining the process.

• LB1130: Proposes to adopt the Community Improvement District Act, which would allow property owners to form a community improvement district within a village or city in order to pay for construction, installation, improvement, equipping, maintenance, and repair of public infrastructure within the district. There is little evidence this creates more affordable lots and this approach is generally not supported by most communities.

• LB1026: Would prohibit retirement, shutdown, cessation of operation, and alteration of operation of certain facilities as prescribed; to harmonize provisions; and to repeal the original section. This would put hurdles in place for developing local energy projects and pre-empts local governments on making decisions for their own power generation.

• LB1027: Proposes to eliminate certain exemptions applicable to privately developed renewable energy generation facilities; to change requirements for the construction of privately developed renewable energy generation facilities; to harmonize provisions; and to repeal the original sections. Another bill that would prohibit local utilities from making decisions about their own power generation resources undermining local control.

The 2026 Nebraska Planning Awards: Celebrating Excellence in Kearney

The 2026 Nebraska Planning Conference (NEPC), held this past March in collaboration with the NPZA, was a landmark event for our professional community. Beyond the sessions and networking, the highlight of our gathering was the recognition of the people, projects, and organizations that have moved Nebraska forward over the past year.

Please join the APA Nebraska Chapter in celebrating our 2026 Award Recipients.

Emerging Practicing Planner

Kevin Pflager, CFM | City Planner, City of Papillion Kevin has demonstrated exceptional commitment to the profession since joining Papillion in 2023. Beyond his work in long-range planning, Kevin has become a leader in youth engagement, developing scalable K–12 planning education tools to inspire the next generation of Nebraska planners. Learn more about the Youth Engagement Program.

Charleston-Ptak Planning Advocate

Gary Person | President/CEO, North Platte Area Chamber and Development Corp. A 40-year veteran of Nebraska leadership, Gary has guided over $2.3 billion in development. His advocacy for collaborative, planning-driven growth—from workforce housing to the Nebraska International Port of the Plains—proves that sound planning is the engine of rural economic prosperity.

Wozniak-Selander Award for a Planning Pioneer

Steve Miller, AICP | Director of Business Development, Clark & Enersen With a 34-year legacy, Steve is recognized for co-founding MindMixer, a digital engagement platform that revolutionized how planners connect with citizens globally. His career bridges the gap between architecture and planning, setting new standards for civic engagement.

Alden Aust Distinguished Leadership Award

Jennifer Dam, AICP The Alden Aust Award honors sustained, career-long excellence. Jennifer has served the cities of Fremont, Lincoln, and Papillion, as well as the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, with distinction. As our Chapter Vice President and PDO, she remains a tireless mentor and advocate for professional standards.

President’s Award

UNL College of Architecture & Community and Regional Planning Department This year’s President’s Award recognizes the historic effort by UNL faculty, staff, and alumni to preserve the planning program during significant university budget reductions. Their successful advocacy ensured that the foundation of planning education remains strong in Nebraska.

Paul Davidoff Advancing Diversity and Social Change Award

Latino Economic Development Council – Adelante Youth Activators Program By empowering Latino high school and first-generation college students to take the lead in the redevelopment of South Omaha’s Plaza de la Raza, the Latino Economic Development Council is building a vibrant, inclusive pipeline for the future of our profession.

Daniel Burnham Award for a Comprehensive Plan

Two communities were recognized this year for advancing the science and art of planning:

• Gretna Comprehensive Plan 2040 “It Matters”: A vision for one of the state's fastest-growing cities that balances rapid expansion with a commitment to small-town character and walkability.

• Springfield Comprehensive Plan (2025): A proactive, community-driven roadmap that provides a sophisticated framework for sustainable growth and regional connectivity.

Planning Excellence in Transportation

La Vista Active Mobility Plan Adopted in early 2025, this plan is a first-of-its-kind for La Vista, focusing on a phased approach to trails, e-assisted mobility, and placemaking to connect residents to their destinations without the need for a car.

Planning Excellence in Housing

Bellevue & Papillion Housing Resilience Plan This regional partnership addresses the critical need for resilient housing. By using interactive community mapping to identify flood risks and heat-islands, these cities are proactively protecting their housing stock and their most vulnerable citizens.

2026 NPZA Awards: Celebrating Excellence in Nebraska Planning

The 2026 Nebraska Planning Conference (NEPC), held this past March in Kearney with APA Nebraska, brought together the best and brightest in the field to share ideas, tackle rural and urban challenges, and most importantly, honor those who have gone above and beyond.

The Nebraska Planning and Zoning Association (NPZA) is proud to recognize the 2026 award recipients who have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the future of our state.

Appointed Official Awards

Recognizing those who serve our communities through dedicated leadership and vision.

• Village of Hershey Planning Commission Composed of volunteers Michelle O'Dea, Lyn Morrow, Nathan Louder, and Tom Johnson, this commission was honored for their professional handling of the complex Hershey Rail Park development and their commitment to continuing education.

• Tobias Tempelmeyer City Administrator, Beatrice Since 2012, Tobias has been a catalyst for growth. His efforts led to $800,000 in revitalization grants and the designation of downtown Beatrice as a Creative District in 2023.

Professional Awards

Honoring career excellence and technical mastery in the planning field.

• Dr. Zhenghong Tang UNL College of Architecture A tireless advocate for the next generation, Dr. Tang was instrumental in preserving the Community and Regional Planning (CRP) program during recent budget challenges.

• Lori Ferguson South Central Economic Development District Lori’s expertise in securing federal and state funding has been a lifeline for communities like Red Cloud and Wood River, fostering vital downtown revitalization.

• Jenny B. Mason Director, NDED With over 12 years of service, Jenny has been a cornerstone of Nebraska’s disaster recovery efforts, particularly following the historic 2019 floods.

• Tammi Palm Planning Director, Bellevue Known for her fair and objective leadership, Tammi was celebrated for her mentorship and her ability to navigate complex public hearings with grace.

The Carol Swayne Planning Commissioner Award

Dave Sack Howard County Planning Commission Named after the legendary Carol Swayne, this award was presented to Dave Sack for his staggering 29 years of service. Dave was a key figure in modernizing Howard County’s zoning regulations and implementing innovative odor footprint standards for agricultural operations.

The Mitsuo Kawamoto Excellence in Planning Award

Hallie Salem Redevelopment Manager, City of Lincoln Honoring the legacy of NPZA founding member Mitsuo Kawamoto, this award went to Hallie Salem. Since 2001, Hallie has managed over 40 redevelopment projects, reshaping downtown Lincoln and the historic Haymarket District.

The Loretta Ludemann Award for Excellence

Judy Mignery Zoning Administrator, Adams County This award recognizes exceptional women in planning. Judy Mignery was honored for her 25+ years of service and her leadership as President of the NACO Planning and Zoning group since 2020. Colleagues praised her as a "go-to" mentor with deep integrity.

A Special Farewell: The President’s Award

Char Carpenter NPZA Recording Secretary In a touching moment, NPZA President Judy Clark presented a special President’s Award to Char Carpenter. After nearly three decades in planning—including 17 years as Antelope County Zoning Administrator and a long tenure as NPZA’s Recording Secretary—Char is retiring from the Board.

"If there ever was a clone for Loretta Ludemann, Char would be it. You simply can't say 'no' to her," the President remarked.

Thank you, Char, for your decades of service. You will be missed!

A lot is happening in the AICP world this spring—check out the highlights below!

Interested in taking the AICP exam or submitting your professional planning experience in 2026? The certification window will open in May. Join APA for one of their AICP Office Hours to learn about One Path to AICP. Visit the Get Started page to register for these events. You’ll also find helpful checklists at the bottom of the page to guide you through each step. Feel free to email aicp@planning.org if you have any questions.

The AICP Certification Scholarship application window opens in May, with recipients selected in June. Scholarships may be applied toward either the exam or the experience assessment.

Future Fellows, check out the upcoming resources below: 

Following NPC, APA and the College of Fellows will offer additional resources to assist nominees in developing and refining their nomination packet. 

• Development-Focused Forum 

• Resubmission Support 

• Nominee Office Hours 

Look for future updates and details following NPC in the Fellows Toolkit. Feel free to email fellows@planning.org with any questions.

CM Grace Period Ending Soon

The 2024–2025 AICP Certification Maintenance (CM) reporting period closed on December 31. The extended CM grace period closes on May 31, 2026. 

What to do now:

• Log into your CM account and review your credit summary.

• Complete any remaining required CM professional development education.

• Ensure all credits are entered and submitted no later than May 31.

If you still need eligible activities, you can explore professional development opportunities through the CM Search tool.

Pro Tip: The search allows you to filter by topic, format (including on-demand options), and credit type to help you find options that fit your schedule

Feel free to email aicpcm@planning.org with any questions.

In 2024 Community Builder, Brent Lucke, interviewed several Lincoln residents about the once-proposed Northeast Radial freeway project. This story is the product of those conversations - the public response, organization of Lincoln neighborhoods, and activists' work to shape our city.

More than just a Freeway Fight

The Lincoln Northeast Radial wasn’t just a roadway, and the fight over its proposed construction was no isolated instance for cities like Lincoln. Urban freeway projects of the mid-twentieth century threatened Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, tore through Omaha’s North End, and famously spawned neighborhood movements led by figures like New York’s Jane Jacobs. This story, however, is exceptionally our own. Not only in the fact that it led the City of Lincoln down a pathway of reinvestment in core neighborhoods, but in how residents with no formal authority, little financial resources, and a multi-decade late start, organized and built coalitions for impact beyond what any one group on its own ever could. This coalition eventually formalized in a grassroots organization that reorientated Lincoln’s (re)development framework. The story of the Northeast Radial is less about one freeway and more about who gets to make decisions about a neighborhood’s future.

The story for these two clashing visions begins both in the 1940s and the 1960s. It’s told at the desk of an employee from what was then Nebraska’s State Highway Department, but also at a coffee table in the Clinton Neighborhood. This story takes place in neighborhoods in decline, but also in neighborhoods with a soul – in packed sanctuaries, libraries, and community halls. The good, the bad, and the ambiguous of this story were shaped by many hands and hearts belonging to folks who had jobs, families, and passions unconnected to the workings of city hall. Ultimately, the story of the Northeast Radial isn’t just about the past, but also about who we are as Lincolnites, Nebraskans, and above all, as neighbors.

Living Memory

It’s February of 2024, and I pull up to the curb across from an unassuming house in the Clinton Neighborhood of Lincoln, Nebraska. The modest home is painted white and features a welcoming porch with a screen door – the kind you’d leave open on a warm day. I ring the doorbell and am greeted by Bob Reeves. Bob and his wife, Mary, are kind folks, like most long-time residents of any Lincoln neighborhood. The two have spent over 45 years in Clinton, raising a family, forging relationships with neighbors, and engaging in activism. They have pride in things that have been done, as well as regrets and uncertainties for the future. I’m invited to sit at the kitchen table and offered a cold drink. After first declining, I accept a glass of water and thank them for taking the time to share the story as they know it.

A later picture of Delores Lintel, organizer and first president of the Clinton Neighborhood Organization Image Source: Lincoln Journal Star

Bob and his wife, Mary, are kind folks, like most long-time residents of any Lincoln neighborhood. The two have spent over 45 years in Clinton, raising a family, forging relationships with neighbors, and engaging in activism. They have pride in things that have been done, as well as regrets and uncertainties for the future. I’m invited to sit at the kitchen table and offered a cold drink. After first declining, I accept a glass of water and thank them for taking the time to share the story as they know it.

Bob, now retired, spent his career as a journalist for the Lincoln Journal Star. In 1979 he and Mary moved to Clinton and found themselves at the peak of a battle for the neighborhood. For decades, real estate agents had been pointing folks away from neighborhoods like Clinton, while current residents dug in their heels to take ownership of the once-vibrant community. The Reeves’ neighbor on 25th Street, Delores Lintel, and other women of the neighborhood shared concerns over coffee. They saw families moving out, businesses closing, and homes getting swept up, with many falling into disrepair without regular upkeep. Disinvestment, a term used to describe a retreat of both private and public funding from a community, had taken hold in Clinton.

Delores and her group started small. They partnered with Clinton Elementary to successfully repave and beautify the alley behind the school. The project became a catalyst for Lincoln’s first formal neighborhood association: the Clinton Neighborhood Organization (CNO). Founded in 1968, CNO became a north star for those who felt something was wrong but didn’t know if they had the power to do anything about it.

Digging Deeper

Coleen Seng, Community Organizer and later Councilwoman and Mayor of Lincoln
Image Source: Lincoln Journal Star

Clinton was not a standalone case of disinvestment and decline in social identity. University Place, once an independent village in Lancaster County, was founded in 1889 to support what is now known as Nebraska Wesleyan University (NWU). This village-turned-neighborhood was ultimately annexed into Lincoln in 1926 but still carried the markers of a distinctive community: streets bearing the names of founders and funders of NWU, and a diverse, thriving main street.

Just as in Clinton, however, things started to change in the 1950s. By the mid-1960s, former Mayor Coleen Seng recalled a “sense of unease” among residents of the area. Some had moved to south Lincoln, others east, but plenty had stayed put. University Place was also built on a solid foundation, with a developed relationship between the neighborhood, the university, and First United Methodist Church. The church’s new pastor, Ebb Munden, had previously worked in neighborhoods fighting decline in New Orleans. He convinced the congregation and other leaders in University Place to support organization around their shared issues.

This was happening in parallel, though not yet in coordination, with Delores and her Clinton neighbors. University Place formed the University Place Community Organization (UPCO), with Coleen Seng hired as a community organizer to build support and membership. Many other neighborhoods of central and northeast Lincoln soon followed.

What Had Been

On a particularly warm week for May in 2024, just around the block from Clinton Elementary, I pull up to Rose Hitz’s home. In 1946, Rose’s parents moved the family from Wilber to Lincoln. It was a different city then with fewer than 120,000 residents and a greater density of businesses, churches, and schools in core neighborhoods. A first-generation Czech American, Rose noted that her family rented a home in University Place when they arrived in Lincoln.

Like many new Lincolnites of the post-war era, access to homeownership was readily available. Housing prices declined as military operations in Air Park were reduced. Military families cleared out of North Lincoln neighborhoods, from Belmont to Clinton, leaving well-maintained, affordable homes. Decades after her parents bought a home in Clinton, Rose and her husband were able to buy a home across the street without overleveraging their finances.

By Rose’s account, neighborhood associations didn’t exist until the late-1960s because residents were already so connected. They were affiliated through places of worship, schools, common employment, and regular day-to-day interactions so they could simply act collectively without a dedicated organization or formal identity. She recalls numerous times the “women of the church” lobbied negligent property owners or the city to address run-down properties, cracked sidewalks near the school, and the care of families in hard times. A tightknit community that, by the dawn of the 1960s, started to fade away as folks moved to new suburbs at Lincoln’s edge.

Many of Rose’s neighbors moved to the recently developed Meadowlane neighborhood, and enrollment at schools like Clinton and Whittier dropped (ultimately contributing to the larger school service areas Lincoln has today). Rose and her husband were advised by a real estate agent not to put much money into their home, and to consider selling as the community anticipated an ever-expanding University of Nebraska campus to absorb the neighborhood.

Nebraska State Highway Department travel demand map of Lincoln, circa 1946

Other People's Plans

While expansion of the University of Nebraska campuses had been a threat to the surrounding neighborhoods for decades, smoke from another fire loomed on the horizon. Across the nation, as America rode the high of post-war abundance and utopianism, the vision of Autorama and the new American Dream of suburban living (for those welcomed into the dream) drove land use and redevelopment across the continent. Visions of “perfected” urban road networks necessitated the demolition of older, core neighborhoods in cities. Freeway projects bulldozed through cities as large as New York and as small as Hartford, Connecticut. Engineers, developers, politicians, and financiers saw the future of the city, and the cure to social ills in “rational” transportation planning and separation of land uses (and people, particularly minorities) from one another.

This theory of planning, the Rational-Comprehensive approach as it’s now called, was projected by Donald White in his 1948 master’s student thesis which was drawn up as a comprehensive plan for Lincoln (the first I could find). Many of its conclusions were that Lincoln needed a series of street realignments, notably in older core neighbors, and the creation of a diagonal (radial) freeway extending from downtown to new suburban growth areas at Lincoln’s northeast and southeastern corners. Lincoln’s first, formally adopted Comprehensive Plan for 1952 echoed both the underlying theories supported by White’s thesis, and the proposal for a Northeast Radial Freeway. The plan anticipated continued urban development of Lincoln to the northeast and an assumption that the homes, businesses, and places of worship in the neighborhoods the freeway would carve through were relics of the past impeding the future growth –and by extension prosperity – of the city.

1952 Lincoln Comprehensive Plan
Proposed route of the Northeast Radial

A Peoples' Organization

Just as in other urban communities nationwide, the neighborhoods along the proposed Northeast Radial Freeway route came to know of the plan by their own investigation, not by formal notification from the City of Lincoln. However, as they learned what forces were behind the deteriorating and abandoned homes, they found ways to take the fight to the freeway and write their own narratives of their neighborhoods’ futures.

It wasn’t until the beginning of the land acquisition process in 1968 that affected neighborhoods had common, documented knowledge of the proposed route. The city pursued a piecemeal acquisition of the Northeast Radial’s right-of-way, foregoing available tools used elsewhere like eminent domain. This gave neighborhoods time to organize as the 1961 Comprehensive Plan pushed the proposed route into Lincoln’s largest majority Black neighborhood: Malone.

Fortunately, like most successful freeway-fighting coalitions of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, the differing racial, class, and contextual formations of the most-affected neighborhoods of Clinton, Malone, and University Place didn’t impede the organization of a united front to stop their mutually realized threat.

Reverand Munden of First United Methodist Church brought not only experience from New Orleans, but also an awareness of Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals and founder of the Chicago-based Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF). The IAF provided training and resources, informed by past fights against disinvestment and destructive urban renewal projects. Organizers from a coalition of the affected neighborhoods, including renters, the City-Wide Tenants Association led by Bea Richmond, and various faith communities, formed a grassroots movement structured as IMPACT in 1972. A delegation from IMPACT received training from IAF and formed the Lincoln Alliance – Lincoln’s homegrown example of what IAF considered a “Peoples’ Organization.”

From Debate to the Ballot Box

Mayor Helen Boosalis, First Woman Mayor of Lincoln
1975-1983
Image Source: Lincoln Journal Star

“Oh... we were so radical,” Coleen Seng recounted with clear sarcasm. She and I sat at her kitchen table in August of 2024, her daughter listening from the other room to occasionally assist with a name or year. Coleen’s tenure of 20 years in elected office and countless more as a youth mentor and community organizer helped her vividly recall the energy and tensions of the freeway fight and formation of the Lincoln Alliance.

Remembering the motivations of the Lincoln Alliance, Coleen was clear that it wasn’t a shared resistance to freeways at-large. The faith-, neighborhood-, and identity-based organizations in the Alliance were unified in frustration that their futures were being planned without any control of the process, or even their voices. “It was not being heard.”

Concerns about the destructive implications of the freeway did not seem to impact city hall. The affected neighborhoods, City-Wide Tenants Association, and Fremont-Area Residents Association published a booklet stating their case against the Northeast Radial Freeway in 1972’s Freeway in Search of a Reason. In April 1973 Lincoln City Council placed a hold on funding allocations for land acquisition, though by November another funding request had been made. Up until that time, councilmembers mostly hailed from South Lincoln. The mayoral administration, later deemed by Delores Lintel as “unhelpful,” listened more readily to business interests and neighborhoods south of the city.

Delores and her contemporaries consider the election of Helen Boosalis in 1975 to be the clear turning point of the Northeast Radial Freeway fight. As Lincoln’s first female mayor, Boosalis was unquestionably a boost to the Lincoln Alliance’s influence at city hall. A seasoned organizer of the League of Women Voters, Boosalis stood as an exception to previous rules of who could hold power in Lincoln politics and empowered a new coalition of voters. Her administration oversaw numerous reforms: directly empowering communities through the creation of neighborhood plans by the Urban Development Department, inviting resident representatives to task forces addressing controversial issues, and a greater presence of the mayor as a “regular Lincolnite” ditching formalities of the office like a private car and chauffeur.

The Lincoln Alliance didn’t rest on its laurels with gains coming from Boosalis’ progressive mayoral administration. The neighborhoods and faith communities of North Lincoln, still concerned with the structural makeup of City Council and a decades-long record of lacking representation, put forward a ballot initiative for a mixed election system, creating a four-year cycle of electing four of the seven seats in districts. This democratic reform ran in parallel to a back-and-forth fight regarding funding of the Northeast Radial Freeway. In the municipal election of 1978 voters made their will known and Lincoln adopted the four-member district and three at-large council make-up that continues today. It is perhaps no coincidence that, in 1979, Boosalis formerly organized the Radial Reuse Task Force with the bulk of its members carrying names and affiliations overlapping with the Lincoln Alliance.

Plans of Our Own

Specific neighborhood plans of 1976 (Malone) to 1979 (Clinton), and the city’s Comprehensive Plan of 1977 all continued to uphold the possibility of a completed (if ambiguously sized and routed) Northeast Radial Freeway. However, the death of Lincoln’s urban freeway finally came in 1980 as a last-ditch attempt to fund its construction by ballot imitative was overwhelmingly defeated (17,524 to 1,644), reaffirming Lincoln City Council’s 5-to-2 vote to end funding for land acquisition earlier that year. Boosalis' Radial Reuse Task Force formulated a vision for Northeast and Central Lincoln, which, with the assistance of a team of urban designers and planners provided by the American Institute of Architects, was published under the guidance of Urban Development in 1980’s Radial Reuse Plan. From this plan, Lincoln constructed the linear park and bikeway now called the Dietrich Trail and redeveloped multi-family and mixed-typology housing to fill lots and land cleared during freeway acquisition.

Criticism of the Reuse Plan was not hard to find, however, with numerous op-eds from affected industrial uses and other business interests peppering the Lincoln Journal Star for months. These opposing groups mirrored the same level of passion that neighborhood groups demonstrated in their publication of Freeway in Search of a Reason and the countless resident submissions to the now-defunct Lincoln Gazette. While compromises can be found in the implementations of today’s Reuse Plan, some components like an alternative “transportation corridor” remained ambiguous well into the 1980s.

The Legacy of Lincoln's Freeway Fighters

The Lincoln Alliance faded away in the 1980s as many of its founding members moved onto political office or other battles. However, its legacy remained through the creation of Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance, overlapping membership in the Lincoln Policy Network, and a shared playbook descending from the Rules for Radicals and IAF teachings. Today, a new group of resident leadership is actively rebuilding the Lincoln Alliance.

While affiliations and formal organization have changed over the years, Bob Reeves believes many of the lessons learned were applied in the planning and (re)construction stages of Salt Creek Roadway, Antelope Valley Parkway, and the redevelopment of eastern Malone and what is now Trago Park. The resident leadership of those plans was first called into action by the city just after the formal completion of the Radial Reuse Plan in 1992.

Despite the healing effects of the Radial Reuse and Antelope Valley projects, the scars of the Northeast Radial Freeway are still apparent, particularly in the Malone Neighborhood. Although it is a well-loved and beneficial asset to residents of all ages – whether they live at Malone Manor or spend afternoons at the Malone Center – Trago Park sits where dozens of homes, a church, and numerous small businesses of “T Town” once anchored Lincoln’s vibrant Black community. The Clinton Neighborhood, particularly along North 27th Street, lost many of its grand, stately homes that other historic neighborhoods (Everett, Near South) pride themselves on. While change is the nature of a neighborhood, most who lived through the height of rational planning in Lincoln agree that change undergone with consent of a neighborhood and to the mutual benefit of its residents is preferred over the imposition of a future planned by those isolated from it and who won’t live through its immediate consequences.

Those of us lucky enough to call Lincoln home today are still reaping the fruits of neighborhood organization, municipal partnership-building, and mutuality among neighbors that the emergent neighborhood associations of the 1970s and Lincoln Alliance stood. Their battle for the future of Lincoln’s core neighborhoods is commemorated in numerous parks along the proposed freeway corridor – UPCO, Lintel, Bea Richmond, Trago, and McWilliams Parks to name a few.

Given this piece’s publisher you likely recognize the bias, but in a Carnegie Library building, the city’s original Northeast Branch, NeighborWorks Lincoln was born in 1986 as Neighborhood Housing Services to ease access to Community Development Block Grants for home rehabilitation and neighborhood reinvestment. The Mayor’s Neighborhood Roundtable, a product of Boosalis' coordination with neighborhood associations on reinvestment projects, and, as previously mentioned, the system of selecting City Council are all clear policy and procedural outcomes of neighbors working together to make their city work for them and their communities.

Beyond the more tangible, many Lincolnites’ sense of place was first forged because of this story in the city’s history. Before the 1960s, as Rose Hitz shared, there were few identifiable neighborhoods in Lincoln. Perhaps before then, we didn’t need them. Lincoln was, despite being a capital city, truly a town. Some would even call it a small town, with less of the tongue-in-cheek of today’s “big, small town” self-description. However, without this solidarity of neighbors, this courage to come together and reject an acceptance of “well, there goes the neighborhood,” Lincoln would be a much different place than it is today. This story and the lessons we can glean from the defeated Northeast Radial are not just the tale of those that came before us. It is our story – a defining moment in the context of your life in Lincoln no matter which neighborhood you call home.

If you are interested in connecting with NWL about the Northeast Radial story please contact Community Builder, Brent Lucke, at brent.lucke@nwlincoln.org or 531.249.1565.

View the original publication at https://nwlincoln.org/our-work/cb/storytelling/neradial.html

APA national invites you to share your perspective on APA elections and leadership
engagement by completing a brief survey and/or participating in a 60-minute virtual
focus group.

This effort is part of a broader initiative led by APA’s Governance Committee to better
understand what you think of APA’s election process, why you vote (or choose not to)
and to understand your awareness of leadership opportunities. Feedback gathered will
help APA to improve elections and strengthen engagement by members like you.

These opportunities are intentionally designed to use multiple engagement methods to
reach as many members as possible and ensure a diverse range of perspectives.
Members are welcome to participate in both the survey and a focus group.

Member Survey
You will be asked to log in to your APA account to access the survey; however,
responses are anonymous and will be reported only in aggregate. The survey will
remain open through May 15.

Take the survey: APA Governance Survey Link

Focus Groups
Each session will be approximately 60 minutes, held virtually, and facilitated by
members of the APA Governance Committee. Conversations will take place in May and
June 2026, and feedback will be summarized anonymously and reported only in
aggregate.

Register for a focus group session now: Focus Group Session Link

APA is your community for professional growth and networking – we appreciate your
time in helping us shape leadership opportunities that meet your needs!

Students Anita Borlak and Ciara Nelson- Forcade interviewing Dave Amos in the School of Journalism podcast studio

In the second episode of the Hyde Lecture podcast series, we interview Dr. Carissa Slotterback, the Dean and a professor in the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Slotterback is a planner and published researcher with interests in environmental and land use planning, transportation, and public engagement. Students Alex Napolitano and Ben Jones asked Carissa many questions about her approach to community engagement and her ideas surrounding environmental planning practices. They also discussed her approach to GIS models as tools for stakeholder engagement. We can gain important knowledge from Carissa’s collaborative efforts surrounding comprehensive, yet intuitive GIS maps. Her research in public participation informs our study in the realm of environmental and land use planning, through the lens of interdisciplinary collaboration.

Students Alex Napolitano and Ben Jones with Dr. Carissa Slotterback

Make sure to check out the episodes now, hosted on the Booked on Planning YouTube page. Stay tuned for future episodes coming later this semester.

The Community and Regional Planning program at the University of Nebraska Lincoln has been intentional about strengthening connections between our students and the wider planning community throughout its existence since the 1970’s.  Although the program has faced challenges before, this is a critical time for planning in Nebraska and beyond. 

One of the most meaningful ways that we have increasingly focused on strengthening these connections is through our mentorship program and support for placing students at internships and planning jobs.  This has continued to grow thanks to the time and generosity of practitioners across Nebraska and beyond.

Our undergraduate and graduate students are preparing for careers in planning with interests that span housing, transportation, environmental planning, and community engagement. Alongside their coursework, many students are seeking opportunities to learn directly from people doing the work. Mentorship provides that bridge by offering perspective, professional context, and space for honest conversation about planning careers and practice.

This past year, mentors connected with students through various events, and now that we have overcome the urgent financial challenges at UNL, we are encouraged to move forward with our efforts to better prime our students for the workforce.

As we move into this semester, we are hoping to expand participation in our mentorship program. We are especially interested in connecting students with planners working in public agencies, consulting firms, nonprofit organizations, and related fields. Mentorship does not require a large time commitment.  In fact, we do everything possible to keep time and other commitments to this program at a minimum.  For many, this program has meant a few conversations over the course of the semester and a willingness to share experience and advice.

We see mentorship as part of a broader effort to strengthen ties between the planning program and the communities it serves. The support of practitioners, alumni, and partners has been especially meaningful over the past semester and continues to shape and inspire the direction of the program.

If you are a planning professional interested in mentoring a student, we would be glad to hear from you. Mentorship is one of the most direct ways to support future planners, and we welcome conversations with anyone interested in being part of that effort.

The Second Regular Session of 109th Nebraska Legislature convened on January 7, 2026. Because this is the second regular session, it is a short session (60 legislative days). This means that any bills passed last session are still live and potentially in play. Bill introduction for the second session concluded on January 21, 2026.The Legislature will adjourn sine die (adjourned with no planned date for resumption) by April 17, 2026. Any bill or resolution not passed at the end of this session expires.

The APA Nebraska Legislative Committee tracks introduced bills meeting the chapter priorities and impactful to the work of planners. Visit APA Nebraska’s 2026 Legislative Session webpage for the most up to date information on bills we are tracking. 

Here’s a brief refresher on how ideas transform into state law. Because Nebraska is the only state in the nation with a Unicameral (one-house) legislature, our process is designed with unique checks and balances that invite public participation at every turn.

1. The Introduction

Every bill begins as an idea from a senator, a citizen, or an organization. During the first 10 days of the session, senators formally introduce these bills. Unlike many other states, Nebraska law requires that each bill focuses on only one subject.

2. The Public Hearing (The "People's House")

Nebraska is unique in its commitment to transparency: every bill introduced is guaranteed a public hearing. This is your opportunity to voice your support or opposition directly to the legislative committee overseeing the bill.

3. The Three Stages of Debate

To ensure careful deliberation without a second chamber (like a House or Senate), a bill must pass three distinct rounds of voting by the full body of 49 senators:

• General File: The first and most critical stage where the most debate and compromise occur.

• Select File: A second chance for senators to refine the bill and add amendments.

• Final Reading: The last vote. By law, the bill must be read aloud in its entirety before a final vote is taken (unless a supermajority votes to waive the reading).

4. Technical Review (E&R)

Between each stage of debate, bills undergo "Enrollment and Review." This is a technical "check-up" to ensure the grammar is correct and the legal language is precise before moving forward.

5. The Governor’s Desk

Once a bill passes its Final Reading, it is sent to the Governor. The Governor has five days to sign it into law, let it become law without a signature, or veto it. If a veto occurs, the Legislature can override it with 30 votes.

When does it take effect?

Most laws go into effect three calendar months after the Legislature adjourns for the year. However, if a bill is passed with an "Emergency Clause," it becomes law the very next day.

Stay engaged!

You can follow the progress of any bill, view hearing schedules, or watch live floor debates by visiting the official Nebraska Legislature website at www.nebraskalegislature.gov. When a bill has an upcoming hearing, you have an opportunity to make your voice heard. Comments can be submitted up until 8 am the day of the hearing online or you can attend the hearing to testify in person. To submit a written comment, search the bill number here, then follow the link that says “submit comments online for LBxxx.”

Tips on Testifying: https://nebraskalegislature.gov/about/testifying.php

This year’s Nebraska Planning Conference keynotes will challenge attendees to rethink how communities grow, engage, and compete in a rapidly changing world. From examining what it truly means to be a “business-friendly” community to exploring how generational values shape placemaking and engagement, these dynamic sessions will offer practical insights, fresh perspectives, and plenty of conversation starters. Join us in Kearney for two engaging keynotes designed to spark dialogue, encourage reflection, and equip planners with tools to better serve their communities.

Lunch Keynote: Big Beautifully Bearded Planners: The Art of Making It All Work

Planning is equal parts logistics, leadership, and controlled chaos. In this engaging keynote, the Big Beautifully Bearded Planners reveal the behind the scenes art planners use to bring structure to uncertainty and movement to stalled initiatives. From balancing public expectations with technical realities to coordinating multiple disciplines, planners excel at aligning teams, reframing challenges, and guiding communities toward workable solutions. Through stories from real projects, interactive polls, and the trademark B3P humor, Josh and TJ unpack the mindset and tools that help planners and their partners make progress when conditions are anything but straightforward. Participants gain insights that apply across specialties, including comprehensive plans, brownfields, zoning reform, and development review, and leave with new ideas for collaborating more effectively and keeping projects moving.

 Lunch Keynote: Clint Runge; Navigating a New Generation Through Placemaking

Generations change. Tastes change. Trying to stay on top of it all can be overwhelming unless we understand the ‘why’s behind the hearts and minds of new generations. When it comes to the reaching young adults, there are incredible forces to consider that are influencing how they see themselves, the brands they buy and the spaces they are drawn to stay. By knowing a generation’s unique operating system, placemakers can be better prepared to take on the nuances of creating attract spaces whether that’s out in the public, at work or online. Trust. Innovation. Influence. Loyalty. Topics that every major organization in the world wrestles to evolve. Packaged into a dynamic talk with lots of conversation starters, Clint breaks down the driving forces that attendees can rely on to build better communities, opportunities and effective marketing.

 We hope you’ll join us in Kearney, March 4–6, for the Nebraska Planning Conference. This year’s conference promises to offer valuable takeaways for planners at every stage of their career. We look forward to the conversations, insights, and connections that will shape the future of planning in Nebraska.

Register today at: NPZA.org/Conference

Spiritual wellness sits in a blind spot in city-making. We measure traffic counts and hospital beds, yet struggle to name why a stroll under trees soothes us or how a plaza can lift a crowd into awe. Architect and planner Phillip Tabb draws a clear line: wellness is preventative, place-based, and social, while much of today’s investment flows to curative health systems. That gap shapes cities. He distinguishes spirituality from religion not to water it down, but to point toward universal experiences—purpose, meaning, serenity—that people of any faith or none can feel. When we design only for throughput and not for presence, we trade human flourishing for speed. 

Tabb’s path winds through Boulder’s Buddhist milieu, sacred geometry workshops, and decades of biophilic design. Those influences surface in a practical lens on the wellness pillars—physical, mental, emotional, social, environmental, spiritual, and financial. Early wellness models leaned on the individual; newer research highlights the social pillar as a longevity engine. That shift matters for planning: streets that slow cars invite conversation; front porches six to ten feet from sidewalks sustain contact even in a pandemic. Environmental wellness arrives not by sprinkling parks like garnish, but by threading living systems through the urban fabric so rivers, shade, and soil are part of daily routes, not destinations behind guardrails. 

Color offers a vivid case. Though omitted in some biophilic lists, color is integral to nature and mood. Blues and greens can calm; reds and ambers can energize. The same recovery ward may need serenity for rest or stimulation for movement; design should anticipate both. Beyond interiors, public space can toggle awe and tranquility without moving an inch. Siena’s Campo hosts quiet lunches and thunderous horse races, proving a single form can hold multiple emotional states. That duality is a design brief: balance prospects and refuges, vastness and intimacy, light and shadow, so places can meet shifting human needs. 

Transportation looms as a spiritual issue. Car-first patterns isolate us from each other and from nature, turning rivers into obstacles and sidewalks into afterthoughts. Tabb argues for accessibility as the baseline of dignity: if daily needs are a mile-wide walk instead of a six-mile drive, wellness becomes possible. The transect model offers a humane gradient—small nucleated villages at the rural edge, scaling to mixed-use neighborhoods and a connected core—with transit as the connective tissue. Where that fabric exists, safety and comfort form the base of a Maslow-like ladder that supports higher-order experiences of meaning and belonging. 

Housing confronts wellness with hard economics and habits. Bigger isn’t better if it erodes connection, affordability, or nature. Compact homes, shared amenities, and mixed uses can lift financial and social pillars together. Tabb’s work at Serenbe shows that small lots, front porches, no front lawns, forested backs, and even limited garages can still draw people at every price point. The lesson isn’t to copy a template, but to assemble common components—access, nature, center, edges, walkability, and reduced harm—into a place scaled to climate, culture, and land. Measure success by lived life: do people linger, wave, chat, and feel safe? If design is preventative care, then a spiritually healthy city is one where the proof is in the daily pudding—quiet joy, frequent contact, and paths that honor both awe and rest.

Reprint from the Booked on Planning blog. Listen to the podcast here: https://www.bookedonplanning.com/podcast/episode/7ebd0ad3/spiritual-wellness-and-the-built-environment  

From 1883 to 1929, a total of 2,509 libraries were built with Carnegie’s funding. Of these, 1,689 were built in the United States, 660 in the United Kingdom and Ireland, 125 in Canada, and 25 others in Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Serbia, Belgium, France, the Caribbean, Mauritius, Malaysia, and Fiji. 

Carnegie’s grants were quite significant for the era in which they were handed out. Small towns would receive $10,000 to construct a library that would typically become the community’s most significant amenity. Almost $56.2 million was provided toward the construction of the 2,509 libraries that received funding. 

Who was Andrew Carnegie? 

Born in Scotland, Andrew Carnegie was quickly drawn to books. This interest would continue after his family immigrated to the United States. He would spend his teen years in Allegheny and Pittsburgh, where he listened to readings and discussions of books from the Trademan’s Subscription Library. A library that his father helped create. This love for books would continue during his early working years, and he would have access to the personal library of Colonel James Anderson. 

Colonel Anderson would be instrumental in the foundation of many of Carnegie’s beliefs. Anderson provided books to “working boys” to allow them to acquire knowledge to improve themselves. This is despite the disdain from others who didn’t believe that those less fortunate should have access to such readings. Carnegie became a strong believer in a society based on merit, where anyone could become successful with hard work and determination. 

In 1889, Carnegie penned an essay entitled The Gospel of Wealth. Within the essay, he proclaimed that the wealthy had a moral obligation to the new upper class to be philanthropic for the betterment of society. He envisioned that libraries were an ideal way to provide resources to others to improve their lives. 

The First Libraries 

Colonel Anderson’s philanthropic ways stuck with Carnegie, even after Andrew became wealthy himself. In 1883, the first Carnegie-funded library would open. The first of what would become thousands of libraries for the public to enjoy. But this library wouldn’t be in the United States; the structure was constructed in Dunfermline, Scotland, where he was born. 

The first library he funded in the United States was in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, where he was raised after crossing the pond from Scotland. This building would become even more noteworthy as it would also house the first Carnegie Music Hall. Although the first library he funded in the United States was in Allegheny, the first one to open was in Braddock, Pennsylvania, just a short distance from Pittsburgh. Just a few years later, the library was expanded to include the third Carnegie Music Hall in the U.S. 

How Fairfield, Iowa, Changed America 

Until 1892, Andrew Carnegie’s focus was entirely on areas where he had personal ties. Scotland and Southwestern Pennsylvania benefited from his philanthropic efforts. However, United States Senator James Wilson, of Fairfield, Iowa, was the impetus that changed Carnegie’s view. Although there was a temporary library established in Fairfield, Senator Wilson saw the need to find a permanent home. Wilson lured the interest of his friend Andrew Carnegie to subsidize the construction of a permanent library. Commissioned in 1892, the Fairfield Library would become the first library that Carnegie would fund for a community to which he had no personal ties. 

As fate would have it, the Fairfield project would be the spark for a new funding model to be used by Carnegie for 2,800 additional libraries. From that point forward, libraries wouldn’t just be built in Pennsylvania or Iowa, but throughout the United States and various countries in the world. 

To this day, the Carnegie Library building in Fairfield still stands and is now on the National Register of Historic Places. However, the library itself moved to a new facility in 1996. The original structure is now home to the Carnegie Historical Museum, which occupies the first and third floors of the building. The second floor houses the Jefferson Center for the Indian Hills Community College. Although the library has moved out of the building, it still provides an educational impact on all three floors. 

Fairfield’s Carnegie Museum, Fairfield, Iowa, by oscophotos; Wikimedia CC-BY-SA-4.0

The Carnegie Formula 

In 1897, Carnegie hired James Bertram as his personal assistant. His right-hand man, Bertram essentially managed the grant program for Carnegie. He reviewed the grant requests and worked with the local governments to ensure they met the requirements to receive funding. 

Most of Carnegie’s libraries were approved for funding under a set of requirements known as the “Carnegie Formula”. The Formula required financial commitments for the operation and maintenance of the libraries to ensure they were supported by the local government into the future. As part of the “Carnegie Formula,” he required the local governments to: 

• Demonstrate the public need for the library 

• Provide the land for the construction of the library 

• Budget at least 10% of the library construction costs within the municipal budget for operation of the library, including: 

  • Funding to maintain the library throughout its lifespan 

  • Funding to pay for library staff 

• Provide free services to all 

A Couple of Remaining Examples 

Over the years, a number of these libraries have been demolished or sold to private owners as age and other factors have limited their viability. Many communities have simply outgrown these facilities. However, approximately 800 of Carnegie’s libraries are still in use as libraries. 

Red Oak, Iowa 

Of course, if I’m going to bring up Carnegie Libraries, I have to mention the one in my hometown. Prior to Carnegie’s assistance, the Red Oak Library was housed in the basement of Houghton State Bank. Looking for a permanent home, the residents of Red Oak looked to Andrew Carnegie. Built in 1909, the library has been a local hub of learning for over 100 years. Like many of these libraries, the Red Oak facility is also on the National Register of Historic Places. This library was highly influential to this blogger’s intellectual development. I can’t count the number of times I have visited this grand structure. 

Red Oak Public Library, by Jim Roberts; Wikimedia CC-BY-SA-4.0

Estherville, Iowa 

Another good example is the one in Estherville, Iowa. Like many other communities, the library in Estherville had a bit of a gypsy history, temporarily setting up shop at a variety of locations. However, city officials worked to obtain a grant from Carnegie. With the grant’s assistance, the ribbon was cut on the new building in 1903.

The community has held tight to the structure. Needing to expand to meet the needs of the community, Estherville added on to the library rather than moving on from it. Other communities like Madison, Minnesota, and Manitou Springs, Colorado, have decided to do the same. 

Estherville Public Library, Estherville, Iowa, by RuralResurrection; Wikimedia

Adaptive Reuse 

Many communities have outgrown their Carnegie Library over the many decades since these libraries were built. Other communities have moved to new facilities due to the maintenance costs tied to these aging structures. But these beautiful structures are often quickly snatched up by someone in the private sector. Many have since become ideal examples of adaptive reuse, as purchasers often have an eager eye towards renovating these storied buildings. 

Charles City, Iowa 

Charles City’s library opened on the corner of Jackson and Kelly Streets in 1904 and was funded through the help of a $12,500 grant from Andrew Carnegie. As the community outgrew the original building, they constructed a new facility that opened in 1979. Since then, the original library has been converted to the Charles City Art Center. Funded by memberships, grants, private donations, and our small endowment fund, the Art Center is free to the public. 

Charles City Art Center

Other Examples 

Numerous other Carnegie Libraries have been transformed from their existing roots into housing a new use. In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the former library is hosting art as well, but as a wing to a larger art museum. The Carnegie library in North Platte, Nebraska now serves as a children’s museum. In Aledo, Illinois, the building has been transformed into a co-working facility for technology education, recruiting and employment. Xenia, Ohio, had a master plan developed that presented three potential options for redevelopers. The library in Olympia, Washington, has even been converted into a “Whiskey Library”. 

A Lasting Legacy 

Though the original Carnegie library program ended in 1929, the impact of the program continues to this day. Regardless of whether these buildings are still being utilized as libraries in Carnegie’s original intent or repurposed through adaptive reuse, most are still having an impact on their communities. 

Carnegie libraries were revolutionary in that they made knowledge freely accessible to all, regardless of class, race, or education. Many of these libraries have been openly celebrated over the years as community hubs and sources for information. They were built with sound construction standards, many of them beautifully adorned with brickwork. 

These historic structures have stood the test of time and serve as iconic, historical monuments closely linked to the sense of community in many towns across the United States. The communities that were fortunate enough to receive funding through Andrew Carnegie’s philanthropic efforts should celebrate what they have. 

Reprinted article from: https://ruralresurrection.com/carnegie-libraries/. Thumbnail photo is of the Albert Lea Carnegie Library, by McGhiever; Wikimedia CC-BY-SA-4.0.

--- 

About Chris Solberg 

Though Christopher Solberg (AICP) works in a suburb of a metropolitan area, his roots are in Red Oak, Iowa, a community of 5,500 persons southeast of Omaha. He has spent a significant amount of his career helping small towns. Through his time working for a regional planning association and for a private consultant Chris has helped numerous small towns throughout Iowa and Nebraska. Chris was the President of the Nebraska Planning and Zoning Association (NPZA) for eight years and a member of both the NPZA and NE APA Nebraska boards. 

Eleven students from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln’s Community and Regional Planning program spent the fall semester transforming classroom concepts into real-world impact by creating an economic development plan for the people of Elmwood. The collaborative initiative aims to chart a community-driven roadmap for economic growth while preserving Elmwood’s unique character.

Under the guidance of Zhenghong Tang, professor of community and regional planning within the College of Architecture, students worked closely with residents to ensure the plan reflected local priorities.

“Our Community and Regional Planning students in the planning studio class contributed to every part of the planning process for Elmwood’s development plan,” Tang said.

The process began in September with a walking tour and listening session, where students learned about Elmwood’s strengths, challenges and aspirations. To deepen community input, the students designed a 12-question survey that garnered responses from more than half of Elmwood’s residents — a level of engagement that became the foundation for the plan.

Community members shared with students they believed their biggest asset for economic development was the small-town character and public facilities such as parks, the community center and the school. They also shared concerns such as declining downtown activity and limited job opportunities.

“We’re very thankful for the strong support from the village board, local residents, community members and Cass County Nebraska Economic Development Council,” Tang said. “This project gave our students real hands-on experience and shows how the university and local communities can team up to strengthen Nebraska’s small towns.”

In mid-November, students presented a draft of their plan during an interactive open house at the Elmwood Learning Center. About 35 community members explored poster stations highlighting different sections of the plan, asked questions and shared feedback. Poster stations on downtown infrastructure and downtown boundary map updates captured the most attention.

Residents also explored creating matching façades for buildings along Highway 1, gave input on preferred signage for the community and explored zoning updates to enhance the parks and trails system within the village.

Over the course of the evening, students gained valuable experience for their future careers as they fielded questions and shared their perspectives on opportunities for growth.

“I’m excited to see people collaborating,” said BJ Burrows, a local business owner. “I’m especially looking forward to seeing improvements and renewed efforts to re-establish our business district.”

Feedback from the open house was collected through conversations, comment cards and stickers on poster boards. Comments will guide the final version of the plan. Proposed ideas — such as creating more downtown apartments above Highway 1 businesses and developing a coffee house cooperative — sparked positive responses, while others will be re-evaluated based on community input.

The final report will provide actionable strategies and resources to help Elmwood pursue grants and implement projects that align with its vision for growth.

To learn more about the project or to explore how to partner with the Community and Regional Planning Program for a community project, contact Yunwoo Nam, the program's director, at ynam2@unl.edu.

In the wake of disastrous floods that have inundated other parts of the country, University of Nebraska–Lincoln researchers say Nebraska could experience similar devastation, with the consequences falling disproportionately on the state’s most vulnerable residents.

A new study, prompted by Nebraska’s catastrophic 2019 floods, concludes that thousands of people living in mobile home parks across Dodge, Douglas and Sarpy counties reside in federally designated flood hazard areas.

The research team, led by Zhenghong Tang, professor of community and regional planning, published its findings in the journal Natural Hazards. By analyzing data from individual buildings across 23 mobile home parks, the study found that about one in five mobile homes in Douglas County — and half of those in Dodge County — are located within high-risk flood zones. With an average household size of 2.5 people, the team estimates that about 1,230 residents — most living in Fremont and northeast Omaha — are exposed to significant flood danger.

Researchers noted that many mobile home parks face heightened flood risks not just because of their location, but due to a lack of basic protective infrastructure. Dodge County, for example, has no levees shielding its mobile home parks, while Douglas County’s levee system along the Missouri River has held back floodwaters in recent years. These vulnerabilities are compounded by limited access to reliable communication, as spotty cellular coverage and limited broadband in some areas can hamper emergency warnings.

Internal park layouts add another layer of risk. Some parks have just one road in and out or a network of dead-end streets — conditions that can trap residents during a flash flood. The study found that mobile home parks with the lowest road connectivity were also the most likely to be in a flood plain.

“This is a perfect storm of vulnerability,” Tang said. “You have aging, low-cost homes located in risky areas, served by weak infrastructure and occupied by residents with fewer resources and fewer options.”

The issue isn’t hypothetical. The 2019 "bomb cyclone," and flooding that spanned from March to July of that year, caused significant damage across Nebraska. Damage estimates range from $1.3 billion to #3 billion. Fremont was completely cut off by floodwater and transportation was disrupted across the state for an extended period, leaving many Nebraskans unable to reach their homes or places of work. The Nebraska Department of Economic Development acknowledged the devastating effects the 2019 disaster had on affordable housing; particularly in Sarpy, Dodge and Douglas counties, where there is a high density of mobile homes. Nearly a third of those who applied for federal housing assistance following the disaster were renters. Several mobile home parks in Sarpy County were inundated, and one park permanently closed after a levee failure.

“Response and recovery are exceedingly costly," said Jenny B. Mason, director of community development and disaster recovery at the Nebraska Department of Economic Development, which awarded federal disaster funding to UNL to develop a strategy to identify and reduce flood vulnerabilities. "An investment in risk awareness and resilience can help mitigate and reduce those costs. To reduce future devastation of floods, it is necessary to better understand our risk."

Despite the damage sustained in 2019, the development of mobile home parks in high-risk areas has continued. From 2018 to 2024, the number of mobile homes grew by 17.6% in Dodge County, 7.6% in Douglas County and 6% in Sarpy County. This growth stems from a complex set of factors: a chronic shortage of affordable housing pushes low-income families into flood-prone parks, while local governments have allowed new parks to be built — and existing ones to remain — in known flood zones.

“While Nebraska legally requires flood risk disclosures to buyers in real estate transactions, the flood risk of the property is not necessarily communicated to renters,” said Jamie Reinke, division manager of floodplain management at the Nebraska Department of Water, Energy and Environment.

Reinke adds that even property owners may not fully understand their flood risk, which can change over time. Local strategies and outreach efforts — supported by DWEE — aim to help communities make risk-informed decisions and access resources like the National Flood Insurance Program. Floodplain information is available through local floodplain administrators or the department’s website or interactive maps.

To better prepare for flooding, the study encourages both immediate actions and longer-term planning.

In the short term, researchers suggest that local governments explore options such as adding at least two exits to every mobile home park and linking annual license renewals to the completion of basic safety improvements. They also encourage the creation of evacuation plans tailored to each park, as well as improvements to communication systems so that residents can receive timely and clear warnings during emergencies.

For the long term, the team recommends looking at ways to increase the availability of affordable housing in areas with lower flood risk. They also suggest considering investments in levees and drainage systems, as well as offering voluntary buyouts or relocation assistance for residents living in the most flood-prone parks. In addition, the study proposes the idea of updating state laws to give counties more flexibility in deciding where mobile home parks can be built.

Jesse Andrews, the study’s lead author and a postdoctoral researcher, said the data provides a clearer understanding of local flood risks.

“Our analysis shows that roughly 1,200 mobile-home park residents in the three counties live within high-risk flood zones,” he said. “These numbers highlight how many people are exposed to flooding and can help guide future conversations about zoning, infrastructure and housing.”

“These numbers represent real people and actual potential outcomes” Tang added. “Our goal is to inform the public so they can make decisions and policies to protect these communities.”

Nebraska communities often face similar questions when focusing attention on a specific area, such as a downtown, a key corridor, or a strategic site.  

Community leaders want to know how to get the ball rolling in the right direction to produce a successful outcome. Planners need to ask what type of strategy will deliver the best value to the community while positioning the plan for implementation.   

When faced with these critical questions, never forget that using the right tool for the job applies to more than carpentry and auto repair. 

This article outlines three common approaches to subarea planning, their strengths, and their trade-offs. It also offers concrete steps to help think through and select the right tools for your community. 

Subarea Focus Embedded in a Comprehensive Plan

Subareas incorporated into Bellevue’s Comprehensive + Transportation Plan.

This approach develops a focused chapter or section within an updated citywide comprehensive plan that highlights one or more priority areas (e.g., downtown, riverfront, innovation district). It’s important to emphasize consistent policy and coordination with the broad vision of the comprehensive plan rather than focus on exhaustive subarea detail.

Consider this approach when the community is in the process of updating its comprehensive plan and wants to elevate key areas without commissioning standalone small-area plans. It’s also an option when budgets or schedules preclude deep, area-specific work.

Typical deliverables:

• an area vision statement

• high-level framework maps

• policy and zoning direction

• limited graphics and visualizations

• Near-term priorities for studies and capital programming

Strengths:

• efficient and cost-effective

• integrates subarea priorities with citywide goals, capital planning, and development review

• useful for setting direction and sequencing follow-up studies

Trade-offs:

• limited depth of information within the subarea

• public engagement is typically broader and packaged within the comprehensive plan

• general engagement may yield fewer sitespecific insights such as transportation assessments, utility impacts, and a sense of community support

• too many focal areas can overshadow other elements of the plan or stretch the comprehensive planning effort thin, limiting fidelity of the recommendations/directions for incorporating a subarea

• combined area-specific community engagement and city-wide engagement can confuse messaging and intent

Small-Area Plan

Distinct areas are delineated in this rendering from the Old Town Revitalization Plan in Pearland, Texas.

This approach develops a city‑led plan focused on a specific district, neighborhood, downtown, or corridor. This effort creates a shared vision, land use/urban design, transportation, and infrastructure direction for the area’s evolution. The plan should identify catalyst projects, near‑term implementation actions (both regulatory and capital), and funding/partnership strategies. 

Consider this approach when the area’s role in the city is evolving (e.g., reinvestment, infill, corridor retrofits, or disinvestment is occurring). Or when the area is otherwise losing the ability to draw residents, businesses, and investment. Subarea plans are typically needed when the area requires a deeper level of engagement, analysis, or regulatory and infrastructure changes than a citywide plan can provide. 

Note that small-area plans are often driven, funded, and led by entities other than the city. These entities may include a downtown association, homeowners’ association, or community coalition. The outside entity can spur action but may also create misalignment with citywide initiatives if the plan is executed poorly. 

Typical deliverables: 

• market snapshot, land use, and zoning recommendations 

• concept framework and street/streetscape typologies 

• site and catalyst concepts 

• transportation and infrastructure analysis and programming 

• a roadmap to implementation 

Strengths: 

• a clear vision for the area 

• deep community input 

• Involvement of specific community groups 

• tailored solutions 

• clear capital and policy roadmap 

• strong alignment with city goals if scoped and executed well 

Trade-offs: 

• requires dedicated funding and/or staff time 

• will not address citywide issues beyond the study area 

• may misalign with citywide planning 

• risks potential engagement burnout if multiple plans occur within a short period 

Master-Planned Site

A master-planned site drawing from a plan for the Mid-America Rail Campus in Falls City

This approach involves a site‑specific plan – often initiated by a developer or owner – for a defined tract such as an industrial park, greenfield subdivision, or planned unit development (PUD).  

This approach should advance development of the site to a level that supports entitlements and investment, including subdivision, zoning, land use designation and its fit (yard and bulk standards); detailed engineering feasibility; access and circulation; and utilities, phasing, and parcel programming. 

Consider this approach when there is a motivated sponsor, and/or a need for actionable, site‑level detail to secure development approvals and financing. Additionally, the opportunity should have a clear alignment with an adopted comprehensive plan, small-area plan, or existing zoning.  

Typical deliverables: 

• development program (land use mix and density) 

• architectural (mass, scale, and form) 

• site layout and engineering concepts 

• street and block plan 

• lotting, utility, and drainage strategy 

• transportation impact and access assessment, cost and phasing plan 

• entitlement path 

• area marketing material 

Strengths: 

• very detailed and implementation‑ready 

• clear path through entitlements 

• quick movement when market conditions align 

Trade-offs:

• may underrepresent broader community goals without city guidance or strong alignment with the comprehensive plan 

• engagement often limited 

• risks misalignment with comprehensive plan or corridor vision if pursued in isolation 

Common Pitfalls (and How to Avoid Them)

1. Stretching the comprehensive plan too far. Limit the number of focus areas and be transparent about the level of detail. 

2. Skipping engagement in site plans. Even if led by a sponsor, make sure to include outreach touchpoints to reduce entitlement risk and future friction. 

3. Creating a vision without implementation. Pair recommendations with funding, phasing, and lead responsibility. Schedule action check-ins at six months, one year, and two years.  

4. Misaligning with policy. Confirm consistency and alignment with the comprehensive plan and zoning. It this isn’t possible, consider parallel policy updates. 

5. Under‑scoping infrastructure. Coordinate early with utilities and stormwater authorities to avoid late‑stage redesigns and cost escalations. 

The Right Plan For the Right Time

Don’t lock into the idea that everything needs to be done at once. When in doubt, stage the work. Set the direction (but not the details) in a comprehensive plan, then dive deeper with a standalone small-area plan or a site‑specific plan as the opportunity emerges. 

That way, when opportunity surfaces, you’ll be ready to match the right planning approach to the right need in your community. 

Choosing the Right Sub-area Planning Approach

Kyle McLaughlin is a senior planner at Olsson. If you’d like to learn more, reach Kyle at kmclaughlin@olsson.com  

/

The American Planning Association completed its 2025 election cycle, along with its chapters, divisions, and the Student Representative Council. Congratulations to all who were nominated on both the national and component levels. For a full list of elected candidates for national positions, head to the APA website https://www.planning.org/elections/.

For the Nebraska Chapter, our new executive board members will begin their roles at the start of 2026. A handful of our board members will continue serving our chapter. Below is the list of the board members and what position they will hold:

• President: Bruce Fountain, AICP

• Vice President: Kyle McLaughlin, AICP

• Secretary: Ruva Tsoka, AICP Candidate

• Treasurer: Jesse Poore, AICP

Stephanie Rouse, AICP, our current Chapter President, will continue being on the executive committee as Immediate Past President. We would like to recognize the board members who will be stepping down from their positions: Cale Brodersen, AICP (Vice President), and Jeff Ray, AICP (Immediate Past President).

Our executive committee is also comprised of Anita Borlak (Student Representative), Dr. Yunwoo Nam (UNL’s Community and Regional Planning Representative), and Chris Solberg (Nebraska Planning and Zoning Association Liaison).

Finally, thank you to all who voted in this election cycle. The next time Nebraska Chapter board positions will be up for election begins in 2027. If interested in engaging with the chapter, stay on the lookout for opportunities to join the chapter committees in the near future!

What Really Drives Community Change?

As planners, we’re always looking for ways to make our communities stronger—better streets, safer intersections, more vibrant public spaces. But Seth Kaplan’s Fragile Neighborhoods reminds us of something easy to overlook: it’s not just the plans or the projects that change communities—it’s the people and organizations on the ground.

Kaplan argues that many of the challenges we see—crime, isolation, economic decline—are symptoms of something deeper: neighborhoods losing their social fabric. His solution? Strengthen the local networks that hold communities together. This book dives into the creative and varying ways that people are doing this. The book highlights inspiring examples that range from a team in Detroit that turned an abandoned school into a community hub offering job training and youth programs to rural leaders in Appalachia blending education and social support to break cycles of poverty. 

For planners, at least for this planner personally, the takeaway is clear: our designs and policies matter, but they work best when they support the people and organizations already driving change. That might mean partnering with local organizations or nonprofits to run with something, or simply making sure our projects create opportunities for neighbors to connect.

Kaplan’s message is in line with the ABCD (Asset Based Community Development) and is a powerful message: even in struggling neighborhoods (maybe even especially in those places), there are assets—leaders, institutions, and networks—that can spark renewal. Our role is to help those sparks catch fire. As planners, we have a unique platform to amplify the work of those already strengthening neighborhoods. Don’t just plan for communities—plan with them. Reach out to local nonprofits, faith groups, and grassroots leaders. Invite them into the process early, and in meaningful ways. The partnerships you build today can turn good projects into transformative ones.

Bottom line: If you want fresh ideas on how planning can go beyond infrastructure, how we can activate and support the things that truly strengthen communities, Fragile Neighborhoods is worth a read.

Copilot Keys - How Planners Can Help

1. Start with People, Not Just Places
   Before drawing up plans, identify local leaders and organizations already making a difference. Build your projects and process around their strengths.

2. Turn Vacant into Vibrant
   Look for underused schools, churches, or commercial spaces that can become community hubs - they were probably the center of activity in the past and could be again.

3. Design for Connection
   Go beyond sidewalks and parks—think about how your projects create opportunities for neighbors to meet, collaborate, and build trust.

Parking sounds mundane until you realize it acts like an operating system for the modern city. On our live episode recorded at the APA Nebraska Fall Workshop with journalist and author Henry Grabar, we trace how a space designed for storing cars came to shape housing, transit, budgets, safety, climate resilience, and even what kinds of buildings are legal to construct. In addition to Henry, city staff presented on Project O Street and the evolution of parking and redeveloped parking lots in downtown Lincoln. Attendees also were guided on a downtown parking walking tour, ending at lunch in the new food truck zone, a space doubling as a parking lot when not in use.

During the workshop, it was made clear that parking policy filters into everything residents notice—congestion, taxes, where businesses thrive, and whether a neighborhood feels walkable. Henry’s central point is disarming in its simplicity: build more parking, and you incentivize more driving. That feedback loop erodes density, pushes destinations farther apart, and makes non‑car travel less viable, cementing a pattern where every new trip demands a new space to store a vehicle. We explore how research confirms this causation and how cities that added supply decades ago now see the downstream mode shift toward driving as the dominant outcome.

Author Henry Graber Presenting at the APA Nebraska Fall Workshop

History provides texture—and warnings. Before cars, “parking” involved live animals and a different set of rules and nuisances. The lineage still lingers in words like “pound,” once for stray cattle and today for towed vehicles. Once the automobile arrived, the cultural pivot was stark: what had been seen as a nuisance became a mandated amenity, baked into zoning as parking minimums that silently dictate site plans and demolition decisions. Henry’s “forbidden city” framing hits hard: many beloved pre‑war main streets, mixed‑use blocks, and quirky apartment buildings would be illegal to build today because parking requirements swallow neighboring parcels and budgets. The loss isn’t just aesthetic; it’s economic and social. Every mandated stall crowds out housing units, storefronts, trees, and taxable floor area, while adding project cost that flows into rents and prices.

The money trail reveals why “free parking” is an illusion. For decades, parking operations were the largest cash business in the country, creating perverse incentives, leakage, and, at times, outright theft. We discuss the shift to card systems, with cities discovering that revenue rose even as traffic fell—a sign that technology and accountability matter. But the more sobering case study is Chicago’s meter lease: a rushed privatization that traded short‑term cash for long‑term control. Rates now better reflect demand, yet the value no longer funds public goods. Every bike lane, bus lane, or street closure triggers payments to investors. The lesson isn’t that public‑private partnerships cannot work; it’s that contracts must preserve civic flexibility and align incentives with the city’s long‑term mobility and land‑use goals.

COVID-19 turned the curb into a canvas. Overnight, parking lanes became dining rooms, pickup zones, parklets, and safer sidewalks. That experiment showed residents the curb is prime public real estate, not a default car shelf. Still, the pandemic battered transit ridership and budgets, exposing how fragile a nine‑to‑five commuter model can be. If cities want the density and foot traffic that power small businesses and culture, they need frequent, reliable service for the trips many riders actually make: night shifts, weekend jobs, childcare, and medical visits. Henry argues that real mode shift tends to appear where driving is less convenient and alternatives are viable—a delicate sequence many regions must choreograph. Charge rational prices at the curb, fill underused garages with all‑day parkers, and reinvest proceeds into safer walking, biking, and better buses. The result is not an overnight revolution, but a steady expansion of choices that lowers household car dependence.

Equity is the hinge. Owning a car can be a lifeline; requiring one is a tax that many households cannot bear. When parking policy compels every building to store cars, we embed those costs into everything from rent to groceries. A fairer system recognizes trade‑offs plainly: if all parking is free, there will be shortages; if shortages persist, projects swell around lots, thinning the urban fabric and tax base. Performance pricing improves turnover in busy blocks while keeping lower‑cost options a short walk away. Residential permits can prevent spillover but should be calibrated to actual occupancy, not perceived fullness at 50 percent. As minimums fall in more cities—Buffalo, Hartford, San Francisco, Minneapolis—lenders are slowly adapting, using comps from successful projects that rented units without bundled stalls. University towns offer another proof point: when curb management is smart and transit is dependable, fewer residents bring cars, and new housing can fit on tighter sites without sacrificing affordability.

Interested to learn more? Listen to the full live Paved Paradise episode at https://www.bookedonplanning.com/podcast/episode/7eb8f6f1/paved-paradise