Over the
course of many public land-use hearings, I’ve often heard participants ask why
decisions aren’t made on the New England town meeting model, which they
understand to be a town-wide gathering to debate a proposal and to render a
consensus decision.
I have a
number of problems with the suggestion.
I’ll start with the fact that speaker is often unfamiliar with the
land-use process, including the knowledge that the town hall model is rarely if
ever applied to land-use decisions.
Instead, town meetings usually focus on public policy and
finance issues.
Also, the
town meeting proponent is usually someone who has never before attended a
land-use hearing, likely will never again, and is only attending this hearing
because it affects his neighborhood. As
it’s often the case that most of the other attendees on the particular night
are also from his neighborhood and are also opposed to the project, the town
meeting proponent is effectively suggesting that any neighborhood should have
the unilateral right to quash any project.
And that result would be a model for aggressive sprawl because only
projects without neighbors could be assured of approval.
Lastly,
giving neighborhoods effective veto power over new projects, a power that would
sometimes be used because of fear of the type of people who would reside in the
new projects, could quickly degrade into discrimination.
Nonetheless,
I remain intrigued by the concept of broader public input into land use
decisions. In recent weeks, I’ve noted that there’s much potential value in the
ideas generated at the interface between the forces of order, represented by
city staff and zoning codes, and the forces of anarchy, represented by public
input. But I also argued that Kristina Ford, in her book “The
Trouble with City Planning”, gave too much value to under-informed public
opinion.
So I’ll
throw out an idea here. Admittedly, I
don’t consider the idea workable, but I like several elements of what it would
accomplish. I offer it here in hopes
that readers will be motivated to give the concept further thought, perhaps
resulting in a more workable alternative.
I propose
that a traditional Planning Commissions be gradually replaced by more inclusive
bodies that I’ll call Public Planning Councils.
(Before
anyone assumes that I’m proposing a crusade against Planning Commissioners, let
me be clear. This idea isn’t motivated
by dissatisfaction with any Planning Commissioners, either individually or
collectively. Planning Commissioners are
some of my best friends and I have respect for both their character and their
diligence. I offer this idea only
because I think we can do better than the traditional Planning Commission model.)
As I
envision it, a Public Planning Council would have an indeterminate number of
members. Any resident of the community
of at least 18 years of age would be eligible to become a Public Planning
Councilor.
The primary requirement
for being a Public Planning Councilor would be having attended fifteen of the
most recent twenty Public Planning Council meetings, with attendance defined as
being present for the entire length of the meeting or three hours, whichever is
less. (Yes, attendance would be taken.)
Also, Public
Planning Councilors must attend at least four outside planning events during a
year. These events could be land use
conferences, Saturday training sessions on the land use process, planning
commission meetings in other communities, or even book club gatherings about
land use tomes.
And that’s
it. Anyone who meets those standards
would be a Public Planning Councilor.
For those
concerned about an abrupt change in the regulatory process, it should be noted
that on the day that a Public Planning Council replaced a Planning Commission,
it’d be likely that the only Councilors would be the current Planning
Commissioners, assuming they’d met the standard for outside education. The transition to a Council with more members
would be a gradual progression as more citizens achieved the qualifications.
In my
community of Petaluma, I’m sure no one other than the current Planning
Commissioners would qualify today.
Having been the only member of the public to sit through an entire
Commission meeting a few days ago, and knowing that I’d personally fall short
of the fifteen meeting standard, I can make that assertion with confidence.
So, what
would be the advantages of a Public Planning Council over a Planning
Commission? I find three primary
points. First, the Council would be
self-selected from folks willing to put in hard work to learn to do the job
well.
Second,
because the Councilors wouldn’t need to curry favor among an elected City
Council for appointment, they’d be more likely to be at the leading edge of
land-use thinking, which is my urbanist angle.
Third, if a
Council becomes much greater in number than a current Commission, there might
be more opportunities to increase public input into the land-use process. An example might be subcommittees from a
Council who would receive periodic briefings from city staff early in the
application process for major projects.
(At present, Planning Commissions only review projects after what could have
been months or years of interaction between developers and planning staffs.)
But against those advantages are some towering
disadvantages.
For cities
that are fighting to stay solvent, the administrative costs of managing the
eligibility of an expanded body and of supporting the additional public
processes would be unacceptable. This is
the single point on which the idea founders.
Also, there
could also be a concern about a developer stacking a Council by having a number
of “friends” qualify for Council participation in advance of a major submittal
by the developer. However, the costs of having
a handful of people attend fifteen meetings and another four outside events would
be significant. Plus, there would be the
chance that some of the folks, with the greater exposure to planning thought,
would become less supportive of the developer’s plans.
Lastly,
there is a chance of a Council growing large enough to become unwieldy. Admittedly, this would be a good problem to
have, but a solution would be required regardless. Breaking down the Councils to serve different
districts of a city could be a partial solution.
Ultimately,
the administrative costs would seem to be the primary obstacle. And, as I acknowledged at the top, I never
expected the idea to be workable. But I
think there is some value in the concept and leave it to my readers to identify
tweaks that may make the concept more achievable.
I’m sure
there are readers out there who are smarter and more creative than me. I’d like to hear from them.
In my next
post, I’ll write for the first time about parklets, a quirky but
potential-filled corner of urbanism. A
parklet concept is currently being floated in Petaluma. Because of possible conflicts, I wouldn’t
talk about the specific proposal, but will offer background theory and reading
on parklets, hopefully facilitating a good discussion about the concept.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
I'm much intrigued with this idea as a good seed, Dave. I haven't time to explain in detail but in my commute last night I heard an interview about the work done by the author of Making Democracy Fun. It's not about "fun and games" but it is about using high level game design to facilitate democratic participation in civic planning. I will attach a link or two for more info, and an excerpt.
ReplyDeleteBarry
https://mitpress.mit.edu/fun
What if public meetings featured competition and collaboration (such as team challenges), clear rules (presented and modeled in multiple ways), measurable progress (such as scores and levels), and engaging sounds and visuals? These game mechanics would make meetings more effective and more enjoyable—even fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oszwOIXOXCM
youtube video
Barry, thanks for the links. I found the production quality on the YouTube link to be so amateurish that it was unwatchable, but the book link intrigued me and I'll do further research.
DeleteI don't know if it's one of Levin's strategies is "descending triads", but it might well be. I've have good luck with descending triads, watching it used successfully to develop a business plan at a former employer and implementing it myself during the Urban Chat Fairgrounds study effort. For the Fairgrounds, I found that the approach yielded good results at the initial level of consensus-building and only stumbled at the higher levels because several folks chose not to embrace it.
However, I think this is a practical limit to how much game theory can be imposed on real world politics. I'm currently reading "Show Me a Hero" about the battle to geographically disperse public housing throughout Yonkers, NY. To the folks who opposed public housing, the issue was life and death. To have suggested to them that game theory had a place in reaching a consensus would have elicited disbelieving and unhelpful rage.