Involving the Public Effectively

When my father was in his late 70s, he was convinced to join a citizens committee that would develop a vision for an unincorporated area in which he and my mother lived.  It was to be part of a General Plan update process.  After his upbringing in a small town, his career in building freeway bridges, and his conversations with me about urbanism, he thought he had something to offer.

Over twenty citizens convened for the first meeting.  A callow planner from the county conducted the meeting, explaining the anticipated schedule and process.  But my father was puzzled by an apparent absence from the room.  After the meeting, he asked the planner who the senior planners or consultants would be.  The people who could help educate the committee about physical and financial feasibility, so that the good intentions of the citizens could be channeled toward effective solutions.

The planner advised him that there was no budget for that type of committee support.  Instead, the final product of the committee would be a report on the citizens’ wishes, unvetted by reality.

Dad thought that was a dumb idea.  Nonetheless, he attended a few more meetings, tossing out ideas like increased neighborhood commercial in the parts of the community that were almost exclusively car-dependent.  No one else on the committee liked his ideas and he gradually drifted away.

When the report was finally issued, he liked poking holes in one of the recommendations.  The committee proposed a long bypass tunnel for the entire length of a major arterial, without intermediate exits.  He agreed that that there was a traffic problem on the road, but it was overwhelmingly local traffic that caused the congestion.  A bypass tunnel would carry almost no traffic and would be prohibitively expensive.  Dad didn’t regret his decision to drift away from the committee. 

That story came to mind last evening while sitting through a meeting of the Petaluma Station Area Plan Citizen Advisory Committee, which was pretty much the diametric opposite of the process in which my father participated.  There has been a consultant involved from the beginning.  And the consultant has provided both good ideas and effective direction.  The citizens on the committee felt engaged, which showed in the quality of the interaction last evening.  Meanwhile, city staff has effectively managed the process.

Which is not to say the process is particularly exciting to outside observers.  Eight members of the general public were present when the meeting began.  After two hours of watching the committee comment on minutiae in the draft report, only one remained.  (I thought she deserved a medal.)  But the meeting was nonetheless part of an effective process, hopefully building a long-term commitment among the citizens and the city staff toward implementation of the station area plan.

Many commenters have thought about how best to engage citizens in an effective process.  Otis White lays down a well-explained theoretical strategy and then gives examples of both good and bad applications.  I found the Florida example particularly enlightening, in a bad way.  

Kaid Benfield has returned frequently to the topic of citizen involvement.  (I have an admission to make.  Whenever, I read one of Benfield’s posts, I’m tempted to shut down this blog, instead posting a message saying “Go read Benfield instead.”  He’s becoming one of my heroes.)

Benfield writes about the Washington, D.C. developers who are using the internet to solicit thoughts about the best use of their vacant building.  I blogged about the developers back in March, but Benfield gives more detail.  The point that I found most compelling was the hope that investors could be convinced that consumers would have an interest in supporting the business for which they lobbied, resulting in greater revenues.  I’m not sure it’s true, but I hope it is.

Next, Benfield collaborator Lee Epstein weighs in with thoughts about how technology can change and improve citizen involvement.  I don’t see technology as a panacea for citizen involvement, but think it offers opportunities.  It’ll be up to us to use the new tools well.

Finally, Benfield talks about the extensive and successful citizens’ involvement for a Denver neighborhood redevelopment.  To me, the key point was having a central committee for citizen involvement under which multiple engagement processes were conducted.   Something like an ad hoc planning commission for a neighborhood.  It’s an approach that may have value to places like the Petaluma Station Area.

Lots of creative ideas about citizens’ engagement.  The challenge will be to implement them effectively.

                                                                       * * * * * *

Weekly notes: (1) The next meeting of the Station Area Plan committee will be Thursday, June 21, 6pm at the Petaluma Community Center.  Prizes may be given to members of the general public who remain present and awake for the full length of the meeting.   (2) The monthly Petaluma Urban Chat will be Wednesday, June 13, 5:30pm at the Aqus Café.  The subject this month will be urban travels.  With summer almost here, we can talk about what cities in which we’ll vacation this year and perhaps share tips about urbanist features to experience.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

Building Community Consensus about Density

Spreading urbanism into towns and suburbs will usually increase density. That aspect of urbanism will often cause opposition. Thus far, we’ve talked about the objections that have been raised by groups that have philosophical problems with increasing density, such as the Agenda 21ers. But more significant opposition for most projects is from the local community. Even when a community has a shared vision of urbanism and increasing density, consensus around a specific project can be difficult.

These issues were highlighted in a recent Urban Land Institute program, “How to Add Density to Affluent Communities”. The session was held in the new library in downtown Lafayette. Most of the content pertained to Lafayette, which is more affluent than many North Bay communities. But many of the lessons that were offered still had broad pertinence.

The speakers, Lafayette City Manager Steve Falk, Matt Branagh of Branagh Development, and Rick Dishnica of Dishnica Company, LLC, collectively made the following points:

1. Community consensus is essential. But as essential as it might be, it can still be hard to reach and requires good facilitation skills.

2. Community consensus can be aided if desirable trade-offs are identified and implemented. In Lafayette, increased density in the downtown core is seen as the cost of the most restrictive ridgeline protection ordinance in the state. The Lafayette community is willing to accept that trade.

3. Even when there is a community consensus, individual projects will still have hurdles to overcome. It is easy for the community to say “We support increased density in general, but not when it looks like that project.”

I think all three points are sound. But when I try to mentally apply the process to the North Bay, I bump into a problem. To build and to continue to support a consensus, long-range city planning staffs are probably the key element. Not the planners who are engaged in day-to-day entitlement processing, but the planners who engage the communities in discussions about long-range visions.

And yet, in the days before the ongoing economic downturn, many cities increasingly tried to tie planning department funding to entitlement proceeds, directing fewer general fund dollars toward long-range planning. That trend was exacerbated by the downturn, which put crushing pressures on the general funds.

I don’t have a solution. I understand the financial pressures under which cities are now working. It wouldn’t be fair to cavalierly call for more funds for long-range planning.

But at the same, it’s essential to recognize the conflict. A crucial tool that we need to begin digging out of the economic hard times, planning staff who is ready and willing to help build community consensus, is a tool that isn’t available because of the hard times.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated. Please comment below or email me. And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)