Michigan Governor, Rick Snyder, has created an Office of Regulatory Reinvention (ORR) to look at the possibility of the state’s deregulating various occupations.  The ORR released its report last week, recommending abolishing nine occupational boards and ending regulations on 18 occupations – including landscape architects, speech pathologists, dietitians, nutritionists and even those providing respiratory care.

The Michigan chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects has issued an open letter to Governor Snyder. The letter, in it’s entirety is as follows:

April 16, 2012

The Honorable Rick Snyder
Governor
PO Box 30013
Lansing, MI 48909

Dear Governor Snyder:

Thank you for all you do to help protect and grow the State of Michigan. It is discouraging to
learn that the landscape architecture profession is among those being recommended for
deregulation by the Office of Regulatory Reinvention (ORR). Landscape architects’ impact on
the health, safety and welfare of public places is a big part of the great vitality of Michigan’s
landscape. For over 100 years, the profession of landscape architecture has been shaping
Michigan’s outdoor public places. These public places provide respite from our hectic lives and
attract thousands of tourists to our great state.

First of all, the Michigan Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects (MiASLA)
wants to applaud you on your efforts to reinvent government in Michigan to help our businesses establish a competitive edge across the country and to thrive. However, MiASLA was shocked to learn that landscape architecture is targeted for deregulation, as to do so would clearly put Michigan landscape architects at a competitive disadvantage for work on projects in our state and in turn would not support your administration’s efforts to promote Michigan as the best place in the country to live and work. Such action will decimate the profession. How can Michigan landscape architects possibly compete when it becomes the only state that does not regulate landscape architecture? The effect of deregulation will put landscape architects out of business.

In its recommendations, the ORR has established a set of criteria to evaluate the regulation of
any profession. On behalf of MiASLA members from all across our state, I can confidently
confirm that the profession meets these criteria:

Risk for Harm to the Consumer
The Background provided in Recommendation #B11 indicates a complete lack of understanding
of our profession by the ORR. It is extremely troubling that the ORR chose to include only a
partial reading of the definition of landscape architecture in Article 22. The text excluded from
the report includes such critical issues as “natural drainage,” “the settings and approaches to
structures and other improvements,” and “the consideration and determination of inherent
problems of the land relating to erosion, use and stress, blight, or other hazards.” If negligent, all of these areas represent a danger to public health and safety as well as the physical and financial risk to property.

Landscape architecture as a profession blends creativity and science resulting in designs that improve livability while protecting health, safety and welfare. A groundbreaking 2003 study Regulation of Landscape Architecture and the Protection of Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
provides ample evidence of very real situations where the practice of landscape architecture can
impact public health and safety, economic vitality, and environmental systems. Every day,
landscape architects work to improve our communities and the environment, using their talents
in design and land‐use management. Projects that landscape architects design include: parks,
trails, bike and pedestrian paths, streetscapes, campuses, shopping centers, transportation
facilities, corporate and institutional facilities – to name a few. All help contribute to the
Michigan’s reputation as a great place to visit, live and do business! Indeed, landscape architects are at the heart of many of our state’s urban redevelopment projects creating memorable places along our streets, walkways, waterfronts, and recreation areas. These projects are the visible portions of the new face of Michigan.

The risk of harm to the consumer is particularly relevant to landscape architecture because the
consumer is not only the client of the design services, but the users. In many cases these are
projects in the public domain, meaning that the general public interacts with, and in, these spaces every day.

Specialized Skills and Training
Landscape architecture has been recognized as a distinct design profession for over a century.
Landscape architects earn a university degree in landscape architecture, like those available at
the accredited programs at the University of Michigan and Michigan State University.
Following graduation, there is a period of internship prior to taking the comprehensive four-part national examination. Through this process, the public can be assured that these professionals are competent to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. This translates to public spaces that are sustainable, contribute to the state’s economy, and assure public health and safety.

Economic Impact
Landscape architects are the “creative class” of professionals that help to create a diverse
Michigan. The profession is an integral contributor to making Michigan a better place to live
and work, and they continue to take steps to improve the professional standing and leadership to forge the new Michigan that you envision.

If licensure is revoked, Michigan will be the only state that does not regulate landscape
architecture. It will cost our state dearly. Keep in mind that landscape architecture is not an
isolated scope of practice. Landscape architects compete and collaborate with other design
professions, such as architects and civil engineers. Without licensure, we simply cannot compete and our businesses cannot function. Licensure levels the playing field for Michigan landscape architects by eliminating this competitive disadvantage on a regional and national basis, even within our own profession. Without licensure, Michigan landscape architects will not be able to effectively compete for projects not only in our own state but in neighboring states as well. As a practical example, an Upper Peninsula landscape architecture firm can now effectively compete for projects at a half dozen or more national forests across the northern tier of Wisconsin and the U.P. because they meet the federal requirement of being a “licensed landscape architect.” Michigan-based landscape architects compete with Wisconsin firms on the basis of providing exceptional service and design expertise in part due to our high level of training. If landscape architecture is deregulated, we will no longer be able to compete for those projects.

Prior to licensure, many graduates from the University of Michigan and Michigan State
University’s internationally acclaimed landscape architecture programs left the state to pursue
careers in states with a licensed profession. With the passage of PA 490, we were able to begin
to reverse that trend and begin to retain some of best and brightest students as practitioners right here in Michigan. It would be tragic if the good intentions of reinventing regulation resulted in driving our graduates to neighboring states that allow them to practice in a wider realm than here at home. These graduates would receive the clear message that, “you can study here but you cannot practice here.” Imagine the negative effect on those institutions that have invested a century in building their reputation as leaders in this field of study!

No Alternative to State Regulation
State licensure of landscape architects is a proven mechanism for protecting the public health,
safety, and welfare. Every U.S. state regulates landscape architecture through licensing.
Licensing also is the model best suited to integrate with design and construction regulations,
which often require a licensed design professional for certain projects, followed by the need for a design professional’s stamp. Landscape architects currently fully participate in this system, but without a stamp or licensure, it would be impossible to do so.

Distinguishable Scope of Practice
Landscape architecture is a profession with a fully distinguishable path to licensure, with
separate and specialized education as well as a national examination. Landscape architecture
fully meets this requirement. There are areas of practice that overlap with other design
professions, but the landscape architecture profession is unique.

Autonomous Practice
The landscape architecture profession clearly meets this standard given that landscape architects design and approve project plans that affect the public. By its very nature, landscape architecture designs the places in the public realm or in commercial places where the public shops, works, and plays.

Applicable State & National Standards
The regulation of landscape architecture in Michigan was first instituted as a title act profession
in 1963. Our registration was upgraded to a practice act license in 2008 with Public Act 490
after decades of tireless dedication and investment in the pursuit of higher standards. The ORR
report incorrectly characterizes the regulation of landscape architecture as only protecting the use of the title despite its operation as a practice act. In fact, the language of Article 22 is
specifically modeled after the language contained in the regulation of architecture. Simply put, if architecture is a practice act, then so is landscape architecture.

When Michigan updated its law in 2008, this legislation was unopposed by any other profession, including those of our sister design professions of architecture, surveying and engineering. Landscape architects here in Michigan have always been interested in having an equal opportunity to compete for work that they are qualified and trained to implement. It is important to note that the landscape architects commitment to our state for full licensure was
so strong that they accepted the entire financial burden of the administrative cost to provide for
state regulation by voluntarily accepting increased licensed fees included in the legislation. The
Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs hailed this self-created, licensee-funded
initiative as a model for other existing professions. Our recognized, public-minded willingness
to fund our own regulation was validated by the bipartisan support and passage of Public Act 490 in the height of the recession.

The success of this relatively recent licensure effort finally put Michigan on par with neighboring states, all of which have a licensed landscape architecture profession. Deregulating Michigan’s landscape architects would actually put the landscape architects in our neighboring states such as Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio, at a competitive advantage over our own landscape architects. In fact, removal of the license will prevent Michigan landscape architects from competing for projects across the country and bringing work back here to Michigan.

In addition to these fundamental criteria for professional regulation, the ORR report includes
several other recommendations directly related to landscape architecture:

Recommendation #A-8: Licensing Reciprocity
This recommendation asserts that, “[l]icensing professionals who meet professional standards for education and experience with credible backgrounds that are congruent with Michigan’s licensed occupations should be welcomed into the state to practice.” Deregulating landscape architecture would achieve the exact opposite and, in fact, drive away the best and brightest from our own landscape architecture programs. For those landscape architects who choose to stay in Michigan after deregulation, they will find it much more difficult to find work in any other jurisdiction.

Recommendation #A-10: Future Regulations
This recommendation asserts that “regulation should not unduly limit competition.” The effect
of deregulation for landscape architects would severely limit the ability of landscape architects to earn a living and compete for projects. Article 22 already protects those in allied green industry professions such as landscape contractors and landscape designers to ensure that they are able to offer their services and continue to compete in those industries. Too often, landscape architecture is confused with landscaping and related green industry professions rather than recognized for its status as a design profession. For this reason, MiASLA supported this language in Article 22 to ensure that there is no impact on other professions.

Recommendation #A-1: Self-supporting Regulation of Occupations
As professionals, landscape architects offered, implemented, and now carry the burden of actions that streamline the cost of managing the licensure of landscape architects in a proactive and progressive fashion. The profession fully accepts the responsibility of paying for their licenses so that Michigan taxpayers are not responsible for any costs associated with the professional licensure.

Conclusion
MiASLA supports efforts to make Michigan businesses more competitive in the national and
global marketplace. By designing the public and private places where Michiganders and visitors
gather, Michigan landscape architects are playing a vital role in this endeavor and will proudly
continue to do so. Deregulating the profession of landscape architecture is clearly contrary to the goals that you have outlined and that we support.

In order for Michigan to play its rightful role in the design of our built environment and the
building of a new and more prosperous Michigan, MiASLA respectfully requests the
deregulation of the profession of landscape architecture must be removed from consideration and excluded from any legislation related to the ORR report.

Respectfully submitted,

Christy D. Summers, LLA, ASLA, LEED AP
President, Michigan Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects

Penn Park is 24 acres of athletic fields, open recreational space, and pedestrian connections on the eastern edge of the University of Pennsylvania’s campus. The Park combines 14 acres of land Penn purchased in 2007 as well as 10 acres of University property near South Street. The Park has increased the University’s green space by 20 percent, and creates a new pedestrian gateway uniting West Philadelphia with Center City. The Park replaces a surface parking lot previously owned by the United States Postal Service.

“Transforming these 24 acres of abandoned lots and unused land into open, accessible, sustainable space connecting Penn with Center City will transform our beautiful campus and Philadelphia for generations to come,” said Penn President Amy Gutmann. “Penn Park marks the first time that the University has, by design, developed open space for the use of the Penn community and beyond.”

Penn Park was designed by landscape architecture firm Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates of Cambridge, Mass. and Brooklyn, NY. The Park’s athletic facilities include the James “Ace” Adams field and Dunning-Cohen Champions field, both multipurpose NCAA regulation athletic fields; a 470- seat multipurpose stadium that is also an NCAA regulation women’s softball field; and 12 tennis courts with 200-seat viewing stands.

Between these facilities are pathways, elevated bridge connections and open space for passive recreation, with 548 trees adorning the landscaped pathways for walking, biking and jogging. The asphalt pathways are edged with Permaloc’s patented asphalt restraint, AsphaltEdge.

Three playing fields utilize synthetic turf for varsity practices as well as club, intramural or recreational games. One will be covered with a seasonal air structure in winter to allow for athletics programming throughout the year. The multipurpose stadium can double for both softball or as an amphitheater for outdoor concerts and other events.