Public Participation in Planning

[This is a paper that I submitted for an English class this quarter. Its length was dictated by the requirements of the class. It's a basic overview of public involvement in planning. Please feel free to comment below! -ed.]

One of my proudest moments as an elected official was when the City of Liberty Lake passed its first comprehensive plan. On the cover, the city declared that the plan was "preserving our past and preparing for our future" (City of Liberty Lake Planning and Building Services 1). One of the priorities in creating the plan was to provide the great care with which public participation was nurtured and integrated into its core values. In American history, public participation has not always been a priority, but significant effort by the planning community has been expended to improve plans through informed public input.

It is easy to find references in planning literature to the utility of public participation in city planning efforts. Eric Damian Kelly states that "[t]he best plans are those that represent the collective will of the community" (91). Stern, Gudes, and Svoray argue that "[it] is widely agreed that increased public participation in planning produces many benefits. Dissent in this case is rare...." (1068). Public participation is widely argued to expand trust, earn credibility for the plan, generate commitment for implementation, build a community’s social capital, empower the participants, increase community knowledge, create ownership, and reduce long-term conflict. (Stern, Gudes, and Svoray 1068).

Though there is near consensus within the city planning industry in favor of public participation, it is not universally embraced by the leaders of the political systems that city planners are often employed to serve. "The social forces surrounding many planners seem simultaneously to produce dialogical ideals pulling them in one direction and efficiency-obsessed realpolitik pushing in the opposite direction" (Sager 65). Planning is an inherently political process. While efforts to reform American government throughout the 20th century attempted to mitigate the intensity of political intervention, planning issues can be driven by local politics, to its detriment (Kelly 53-54).

The planning community’s response to such challenges was to establish a code of ethics for city planners. In the case of the United States, the code of ethics was established and is enforced by the American Planning Association (APA). All certified city planners are expected to conform to the spirit of the code, an element of which does establish the importance of public participation. The relevant section states, in part, that city planners are to "[r]ecognize the rights of citizens to participate in planning decisions…and the opportunity to have a meaningful role in the development of plans and programs" ("Ethical Principles"). This ethical standard supersedes the vagaries of political debate, and is intended to guide and protect city planners in a heated environment.

Recognizing the importance of public participation motivates city planners to interact with the community at large. The interest is great enough that studies have been performed to find how various demographics affect participation in community activities. For instance, Besser and Ryan found that communities with a higher percentage of full time workers, college graduates, and employment within the community increased public participation. However, since these demographic factors cannot be manipulated directly, city planners must modulate their public participation opportunities to best fit the community within available resources.

The planner’s goal is to make public participation in the planning process representative and meaningful (Kelly 91). For participation to be representative, it must have as its source a wide variety of people with respect to age, income, marital status, geography, education, race, and other measurable demographics (Kelly 91-92). For it to be meaningful, there must be a chance that participation can affect the outcome of the plan. With confidence that meaningful, representative participation is possible, city planners create a public participation plan to include all affected individuals and groups. Accordingly, many techniques, each with their strengths and weaknesses, are considered traditional if not statutory.

Public hearings are often required by state laws (Kelly 96-97). Public hearings are a highly structured and formal public participation technique, and guarantee that all interested persons may participate in one form or another. However, public hearings are generally the last step in the adoption of plans. Consequently, while this form of participation may be representative, it may not be meaningful. Other public meetings, such as neighborhood meetings, may be more meaningful, but because multiple meetings are often necessary to make it representative, it is resource intensive, and many communities lack the means necessary to conduct them (Kelly 97-98).

More personal forms of public participation include stakeholder group meetings, key person interviews, and focus groups. Stakeholders, such as business groups, homeowners associations, and environmentalists can be gathered for the city to receive input. When experts or highly active members of the community are available, they can be interviewed directly. Cities may also hire trained facilitators to interview groups of randomly selected individuals to get a cross section of the community’s ideas. Because the people who participate in these forms are chosen by the planning government, the potential for unrepresentative input is high. However, because the participants can be chosen by some group identity or participation in local governance, they can be highly meaningful. There is a priority to make the selection process appear fair, and early inclusion of these forms of participation can be useful in issue identification (Kelly 98-99).

A more representative method of participation is the community survey. Most people do not attend public meetings of any kind, so a professionally designed public survey can provide useful information. Open surveys are less expensive, but they suffer from the potential that some groups may distort the results through coordinated responses, even if they do not intend to do so (Kelly 99). Scientific surveys are more reliable. However, such surveys cannot be scaled since small communities require approximately the same number of survey responses as large communities to be considered valid (Kelly 100).

With the newly ubiquitous nature of web-based social interaction, planning is going online. A study conducted by Stern, Gudes, and Svoray indicates that while providing opportunities for participation in planning through the web increases involvement, it does not increase the participant’s sense of involvement (1076). Web-based planning participation may increase trust in the plan and the city planners (Stern, Gudes, and Svoray 1079). However, in both of these measures, and in the feeling of empowerment felt by the participants, web participation was not nearly as powerful as a combination of web-based and traditional planning outreach (Stern, Gudes, and Svoray 1083). The other, more traditional, forms are still necessary.

City planners recognize the importance of public participation because it is both ethical and practical. Planners seek input which is representative and meaningful, so they can generate plans which serve their communities. Because each neighborhood is different, various methods are practiced and new methods are being added as technology advances. If history is any indication, an expansion of public participation will continue into the future resulting in ever better planning for the cities of tomorrow.



Works Cited


Besser, Terry L. and Vernon D. Ryan. "The impact of labor market involvement on participation in the community." Journal of the Community Development Society of America. 31.1 (2000): 72-88. Print.

City of Liberty Lake Planning and Building Services. "City of Liberty Lake Comprehensive Plan 2003 – 2022." City of Liberty Lake, WA. City of Liberty Lake, 18 Dec. 2007. Web. 9 Feb. 2010.

"Ethical Principles in Planning." American Planning Association. American Planning Association, May 1992. Web. 9 Feb. 2010.

Kelly, Eric Damian. Community planning: an introduction to the comprehensive plan. 2nd ed. Washington: Island Press, 2010. Print.

Sager, Tore. "Planners’ role: torn between dialogical ideals and neo-liberal realities." European Planning Studies. 17.1 (2009): 65-84. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Feb. 2010.

Stern, Eliahu, Ori Gudes and Tal Svoray. "Web-based and traditional public participation in comprehensive planning: a comparative study." Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 36.6 (2009): 1067-85. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Feb. 2010.

Ponderosa Neighborhood Appeal Successful

Yesterday, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled that a proposed subdivision adjacent to the Ponderosa neighborhood in Spokane Valley is a potential safety hazard in the event of a wildfire, making it subject to an environmental impact statement.

This case is full of twists and turns. The City of Spokane Valley issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MDNS) in approving a preliminary plat in March 2007 on the hillside above the Ponderosa neighborhood. (An MDNS says that there are some things that a developer must do--in this case, preserving any archeological sites--to gain approval for the project.) This approval was appealed by the Ponderosa Neighborhood Association (PNA) on the grounds that Ponderosa is a high fire danger area, and additional housing units on the east side of Browne's Mountain would add traffic to an area which has insufficient evacuation routes.

The hearings examiner, Michael Dempsey, received testimony from the developer's traffic engineer that evacuation was not a problem, even under the worst-case scenario. However, the hearings examiner performed his own statistical analysis and under the same conditions and found that, in fact, the evaluation was performed under ideal conditions: that there were no stalled cars, no fallen trees, and no smoke near a major fire. He concluded as a matter of fact that 20 percent of the existing residents, and none of the new residents, could escape within a 30-minute time frame. The hearings examiner directed the city to perform an environmental impact statement.

The hearings examiner reasoned that, "Preparation of an EIS [environmental impact statement] for the project would allow for consultation with local law enforcement, fire districts and emergency planning authorities regarding an evacuation plan for the Ponderosa, the search for and the feasibility of a third (3) public access, consideration of the various wildfire scenarios in the Ponderosa, and the exploration of other strategies to evacuation in wildfire events that may have merit in the Ponderosa area." He also stated that a similar EIS was performed for a similar development and was successful.

Lanzce Douglass, the developer, appealed the hearing examiner's ruling to superior court. Amongst the arguments were: there is no legal basis for a 30-minute time frame, and that, even if it were the case, there was an existing deficiency that he was not responsible for fixing. He concluded that the hearings examiner had improperly denied the plat. Superior court agreed with Douglass.

However, the PNA appealed this ruling stating that the plat had not been denied, merely sent back to the City for an EIS. The court also found that while the 30-minute standard was mentioned in the hearing examiner's ruling, it was not applied as a matter of law, but as a matter of fact. This fact was used to determine that there was a probable environmental impact of the development. This is the standard by which an EIS is deemed necessary.

Additionally, the court found that the plat was not conditioned upon improvement of an existing deficiency. Cumulative traffic impacts are precisely the kind of issue analyzed by an EIS. Consequently, the appellate court overturned the superior court and agreed with the PNA.