- Risk-Taking Rises as Oil Rigs in Gulf Drill Deeper
Source: New York Times; August 29, 2010
Summary: Oil rigs have been built farther and farther out into the Gulf of Mexico. However, risks do not increase with increasing depth of drilling, but, instead with greater complexity. While the ill-fated Deepwater Horizon was only a drilling rig, Shell's Perdido rig "can drill and pump oil from wells across 30 miles of ocean floor. Below it is a subsea cityscape of pumps, pipes, valves, manifolds, wellheads and blowout preventers...." Undersea drilling had been deemed safe due to a limited number of reported accidents. But, according to a former industry executive, "Our ability to manage risks hasn't caught up with our ability to explore and produce in deep water."
Opinion: The issue here is not that they're drilling deeper, but that our energy consumption isn't linked to the risks being experienced. If the nation's petroleum users are willing to take those risks, that's fine, but it should be a conscious decision. Additionally, the full costs associated with those risks should be borne by their consumers. The BP oil spill proves that this nation is not fully allocating those costs, not doing enough to mitigate those risks, nor prepared to deal with the consequences when those risks are realized. Ultimately, when someone argues that it's too expensive to deal with those issues, they're admitting that this nation is not willing to pay the price of our current petroleum addiction. - Free parking isn't free
Source: The Spokesman-Review; August 29, 2010
Summary: Editor Gary Crooks discovers Donald Shoup's "The High Cost of Free Parking." He makes an estimable stab at the topic, laying out the problem with the hidden costs of "free" parking built into everything we buy, and into every time we travel.
Opinion: the problem is not that it costs money to park, but that local government, through its land use code, has forced such a massive oversupply of parking that it's literally worthless in most places. In addition to being a massive waste of space, it moves every place you want to get to farther apart, necessitating the ownership of a car to get around. You can check it out from the Spokane City Library. Predictably, it's not available at Spokane County or Liberty Lake libraries. - Homebuilders hope boomers beat a new path to their doors
Source: The Spokesman-Review; February 7, 2010
Summary: Homebuilders are pleased that the baby boomers are aging and wanting to downsize their homes. A quarter of the US population will be 55 or older in 2014. While 60 percent want to stay in their homes, the remainder want alternatives. More than 75 percent of these potential homebuyers want to live in the suburbs. They're only wanting to pay $190,000, though--a far cry from the $287,000 the builders want.
Opinion: They can't live in the suburbs. For the past 50 years, governments have been making rules (which the baby boomers wanted) to prevent this kind of development. They want 1,900 square foot houses, which means that they're only paying $100/square foot which means either: 1) lower quality finishings, which they won't like because they compare unfavorably from what they came from, or 2) less land between the houses, which is not suburbia. They're also likely to be looking for homes with just one floor to make getting around easier. But, that also takes more land for the same space. Plus, they don't have as much equity as they think. If so many baby boomers want to move, the massive number of houses on the market will push prices down. Elected officials have been told this was going to happen for at least a decade, and it takes that long to get substantial change in the land use patterns. But, I guess, at least I'm happy that while the solution has been staring Spokane and the region in the face for a long time, at least there's an article in the newspaper which shows that someone has gotten up to noticing that there might be a problem. (By the way, Liberty Lake has a development on Appleway which may help with this problem despite significant opposition on the council and a self-defeating limit on density.) - Seattle may create transportation taxing district
Source: The Seattle Times; August 10, 2010
Summary: Seattle is considering the creation of a transportation benefit district (TBD) to fund transportation projects within the city. TBD's are permitted to charge a $20 car tab fee without a vote of the people, and up to $100 with a public vote. Additionally, the TBD may also charge 0.2 cent sales tax and property taxes with a public vote.
Opinion: This is the same type of district that the City of Spokane is considering for its well documented transportation woes (not congestion because the concept of congestion in Spokane is laughable, but asset preservation). There is another TBD in Spokane County already--the Liberty Lake Trails TBD which built a number of trails connecting throughout the community, and, with the help of the city, the pedestrian bridge over the freeway. However, that was an older version of the TBD statute which only authorized a property tax. The $20 car tab fee is new.
Four the Future - August 29
Comments on Covenants
Division Three of the Washington Court of Appeals recently circulated an unpublished decision in the case of Mitschke v Nielsen in which several legal concepts regarding land use covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CCR's) were addressed. Many people think of CCR's as the tool of homeowner associations to enforce neighborhood rules such as house color, architectural standards, use restrictions, and such that some people like to have, but are considered to be outside the power of government to enforce (or trivial from the public point of view).
CCR's are basically contracts which run with the land. When a property is sold, the new owner is obligated to accept the terms of the contract as a condition of the sale.
While the specifics of the case aren't important (except, clearly, to the individuals involved), the ruling of the court was that the purported covenant was unenforceable. That, for those who live in neighborhoods with CCR's, might be important to you. So, what happened?
The court concluded that the specific covenant was not acknowledged by each property owner when it was sold to them. That is, in order to be subject to a covenant, the new property owner must be aware of it and agree to it. Of course, agreeing to it must also be a condition of the sale of the property.
Also, there were irregularities in the documentation itself, some glaringly bizarre: the name of the subdivision was that of a different neighborhood and the name of the neighborhood the litigants lived in was handwritten at the top of the page, also, there was no reference to the location of the properties.
The covenant had several articles to which property owners were purportedly required to adhere. Number 4 limits garages to two cars. Number 6 forbade loud animals. Number 9 required that all alterations be approved by the architectural control committee (ACC). The covenant also forbade commercial enterprises without the permission of the ACC.
The trial court found as a matter of fact that each of these articles had been violated multiple times by multiple residents. Indeed, even the Mitschke family had violated the commercial enterprise requirement. It concluded that because of the frequency of violations, the neighborhood had abandoned the CCR's, even if they had been enforceable.
(The phrase that's used regarding the Mitschke family's violation of the CCR's is interesting. It's best for you all to remember that if you're going to attempt to enforce questionable CCR's, "a person must come into a court of equity with clean hands." Pierce County v. State, 144 Wn. App. 783, 832, 185 P.3d 594 (2008) (citing Income Investors, Inc. v. Shelton, 3 Wn.2d 599, 602, 101 P.2d 973 (1940)). In other words, don't violate the CCR's, then complain that someone else is, too.)
Outside this particular case, it's also important to remember that government agencies will not enforce CCR's. They are private party contracts, and need to be enforced by the people of the neighborhood. Failure to enforce your CCR's will invalidate them, so 1) make sure you're enthusiastic about doing so, and 2) make sure that when your neighborhood no longer wishes to enforce particular sections that you alter the CCR's or your failure to enforce one portion may invalidate your ability to enforce the rest.
Another thing of which you must be aware: covenants cannot be contrary to the public good. Even if your neighborhood wants to have rules which violate the law, and everyone agrees to violate the law, you still are not wise to come to a court and convince it to force someone who moves in to violate the law. So, for those neighborhoods which have limitations on the number of residential units on a lot (i.e. single family homes), if city or county law says that it's a public good that accessory dwelling units (ADU, i.e. granny flats or apartments over garages) be allowed, then the covenant will not be valid on that point, and people will be able to add the ADU.
Covenants can be useful for homeowner's associations, and homeowners associations can provide useful services to a neighborhood (such as maintaining common property like the roads, trails, and pocket parks). As a source of social control, they do leave a great deal to be desired. However, if this is your preferred method of limiting the freedoms of your neighbors, then make sure you're doing it vigorously.
CCR's are basically contracts which run with the land. When a property is sold, the new owner is obligated to accept the terms of the contract as a condition of the sale.
While the specifics of the case aren't important (except, clearly, to the individuals involved), the ruling of the court was that the purported covenant was unenforceable. That, for those who live in neighborhoods with CCR's, might be important to you. So, what happened?
The court concluded that the specific covenant was not acknowledged by each property owner when it was sold to them. That is, in order to be subject to a covenant, the new property owner must be aware of it and agree to it. Of course, agreeing to it must also be a condition of the sale of the property.
Also, there were irregularities in the documentation itself, some glaringly bizarre: the name of the subdivision was that of a different neighborhood and the name of the neighborhood the litigants lived in was handwritten at the top of the page, also, there was no reference to the location of the properties.
The covenant had several articles to which property owners were purportedly required to adhere. Number 4 limits garages to two cars. Number 6 forbade loud animals. Number 9 required that all alterations be approved by the architectural control committee (ACC). The covenant also forbade commercial enterprises without the permission of the ACC.
The trial court found as a matter of fact that each of these articles had been violated multiple times by multiple residents. Indeed, even the Mitschke family had violated the commercial enterprise requirement. It concluded that because of the frequency of violations, the neighborhood had abandoned the CCR's, even if they had been enforceable.
(The phrase that's used regarding the Mitschke family's violation of the CCR's is interesting. It's best for you all to remember that if you're going to attempt to enforce questionable CCR's, "a person must come into a court of equity with clean hands." Pierce County v. State, 144 Wn. App. 783, 832, 185 P.3d 594 (2008) (citing Income Investors, Inc. v. Shelton, 3 Wn.2d 599, 602, 101 P.2d 973 (1940)). In other words, don't violate the CCR's, then complain that someone else is, too.)
Outside this particular case, it's also important to remember that government agencies will not enforce CCR's. They are private party contracts, and need to be enforced by the people of the neighborhood. Failure to enforce your CCR's will invalidate them, so 1) make sure you're enthusiastic about doing so, and 2) make sure that when your neighborhood no longer wishes to enforce particular sections that you alter the CCR's or your failure to enforce one portion may invalidate your ability to enforce the rest.
Another thing of which you must be aware: covenants cannot be contrary to the public good. Even if your neighborhood wants to have rules which violate the law, and everyone agrees to violate the law, you still are not wise to come to a court and convince it to force someone who moves in to violate the law. So, for those neighborhoods which have limitations on the number of residential units on a lot (i.e. single family homes), if city or county law says that it's a public good that accessory dwelling units (ADU, i.e. granny flats or apartments over garages) be allowed, then the covenant will not be valid on that point, and people will be able to add the ADU.
Covenants can be useful for homeowner's associations, and homeowners associations can provide useful services to a neighborhood (such as maintaining common property like the roads, trails, and pocket parks). As a source of social control, they do leave a great deal to be desired. However, if this is your preferred method of limiting the freedoms of your neighbors, then make sure you're doing it vigorously.
The City
As part of my Introduction to Urban and Regional Planning, I was shown a movie produced in 1939 entitled, "The City." The punchline? Planners caused sprawl because their work was connected to theory, and not to data. Insist that your planners use data, not ideology, to drive their work.
Part one:
And, Part two:
Part one:
And, Part two:
Complete Streets
Recently, a significant amount of debate has been underway in Spokane about the "complete streets" concept. In a nutshell, a complete street is one which all people can use and feel safe, whether they are using a car, bike, feet, or any other conveyance. There has been a great deal of reasoned discussion on this important transportation topic. (There have also been spirited assertions* on the issue.)
Futurewise's Kitty Klitzke worked hard on convincing the Spokane City Council to adopt a resolution directing the city to gather the information for and prepare a complete streets ordinance. Futurewise's web page on the subject is here. Councilmembers Corker, Rush, Shogan and Waldref voted in favor of the resolution. Councilmember Jon Snyder blogged about it the next morning and posted the resolution text as well.
There is an embarrassing amount of angry, anti-bike sentiment expressed in Spokane (and those two both on the same day). Oh, and by the way, first letter writer above, the roads were not made for cars. They were made for pedestrians, horse and buggies, and streetcars.
Spokane's Citizen Streets Committee Chairman Dallas Hawkins states that he is in favor of the concept, but it concerned about the cost. This is a reasonable initial concern, but federal grants are available ("enhancement grants") which will cover up to 80% of that cost. Since the cost of pedestrian and bike facilities are low anyway, this makes them exceptionally inexpensive.
There is a comment on that opinion piece above which says, essentially, that bikes should be allowed the equal proportion of right-of-way to the proportion of trips that road carries. This is a specious argument. If the road doesn't have a bike lane, the road may very well be impassable by bikes. Those are the roads which are most in need of bike lanes, not the least. Besides, if you start considering the number of kids riding bikes on residential streets--well, the auto-only advocates had better watch out for what they wish. They might be banished from the neighborhoods forever.
And, the tide is turning at the federal level regarding transportation alternatives to automobiles. The United States Department of Transportation has issued new policy regarding complete streets which will have the effect of putting communities which fail to accommodate all transportation modes at a disadvantage. Here is the policy statement, issued of March 15, 2010:
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood blogged about this new policy as well, and included two videos of his "tabletop speech" on the topic.
It's important that we fully understand the costs, yes, but we must also be mindful of the advantages, including improved air quality, improved cardiovascular health, reduced street maintenance costs, reduced dependency on foreign oil, reduced carbon dioxide emissions, reduced personal transportation costs, improved public safety, and even an improved economy for locally owned businesses. Only short-sightedness and prejudice can get in the way.
* My term for debates in which the tin-foil-wearing, UN-conspiracy-fearing, black-helicopter crowd is inspired to participate. Apparently some people think that the UN is taking us over through installing sidewalks so that people with disabilities can use them.
Futurewise's Kitty Klitzke worked hard on convincing the Spokane City Council to adopt a resolution directing the city to gather the information for and prepare a complete streets ordinance. Futurewise's web page on the subject is here. Councilmembers Corker, Rush, Shogan and Waldref voted in favor of the resolution. Councilmember Jon Snyder blogged about it the next morning and posted the resolution text as well.
There is an embarrassing amount of angry, anti-bike sentiment expressed in Spokane (and those two both on the same day). Oh, and by the way, first letter writer above, the roads were not made for cars. They were made for pedestrians, horse and buggies, and streetcars.
Spokane's Citizen Streets Committee Chairman Dallas Hawkins states that he is in favor of the concept, but it concerned about the cost. This is a reasonable initial concern, but federal grants are available ("enhancement grants") which will cover up to 80% of that cost. Since the cost of pedestrian and bike facilities are low anyway, this makes them exceptionally inexpensive.
There is a comment on that opinion piece above which says, essentially, that bikes should be allowed the equal proportion of right-of-way to the proportion of trips that road carries. This is a specious argument. If the road doesn't have a bike lane, the road may very well be impassable by bikes. Those are the roads which are most in need of bike lanes, not the least. Besides, if you start considering the number of kids riding bikes on residential streets--well, the auto-only advocates had better watch out for what they wish. They might be banished from the neighborhoods forever.
And, the tide is turning at the federal level regarding transportation alternatives to automobiles. The United States Department of Transportation has issued new policy regarding complete streets which will have the effect of putting communities which fail to accommodate all transportation modes at a disadvantage. Here is the policy statement, issued of March 15, 2010:
The DOT policy is to incorporate safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities into transportation projects. Every transportation agency, including DOT, has the responsibility to improve conditions and opportunities for walking and bicycling and to integrate walking and bicycling into their transportation systems. Because of the numerous individual and community benefits that walking and bicycling provide — including health, safety, environmental, transportation, and quality of life — transportation agencies are encouraged to go beyond minimum standards to provide safe and convenient facilities for these modes.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood blogged about this new policy as well, and included two videos of his "tabletop speech" on the topic.
It's important that we fully understand the costs, yes, but we must also be mindful of the advantages, including improved air quality, improved cardiovascular health, reduced street maintenance costs, reduced dependency on foreign oil, reduced carbon dioxide emissions, reduced personal transportation costs, improved public safety, and even an improved economy for locally owned businesses. Only short-sightedness and prejudice can get in the way.
Brownfields Direct Assistance
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), brownfields are "real propert[ies], the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant." Most people can think of a place in their neighborhood or region where there were industrial activities that had the potential of contaminating the ground. Now idle, those properties are unused because it's easier to develop greenfields (previously unbuilt properties) than rehabilitate a contaminated site.
Why is it important to deal with brownfields? First of all, there is the environmental impact. Over time, there is the potential that brownfields can contaminate other properties as well. If wildlife are taking advantage of the low impact activities there, they may also bring contaminants into the biology of the area. Secondly, brownfields drive down property values. After all, who wants to live next to an unmitigated environmental problem? Third, brownfields contribute to sprawl by taking otherwise productive land out of the market, requiring the construction of new facilities out on the rural edge and the extension of services such as sewer, water, roads, police, fire protection and schools into areas that didn't need it previously--a very expensive option!
If you'd like to point out a brownfield that you'd like to be returned to a productive state, now's the time to inform your local jurisdiction. The EPA is offering assistance to local jurisdictions for direct assistance in the planning of brownfield rehabilitation of a "neighborhood, district, city block or corridor." Your advocacy and the availability of assistance might make something happen! Applications made by your city or county are due by June 1, 2010.
Why is it important to deal with brownfields? First of all, there is the environmental impact. Over time, there is the potential that brownfields can contaminate other properties as well. If wildlife are taking advantage of the low impact activities there, they may also bring contaminants into the biology of the area. Secondly, brownfields drive down property values. After all, who wants to live next to an unmitigated environmental problem? Third, brownfields contribute to sprawl by taking otherwise productive land out of the market, requiring the construction of new facilities out on the rural edge and the extension of services such as sewer, water, roads, police, fire protection and schools into areas that didn't need it previously--a very expensive option!
If you'd like to point out a brownfield that you'd like to be returned to a productive state, now's the time to inform your local jurisdiction. The EPA is offering assistance to local jurisdictions for direct assistance in the planning of brownfield rehabilitation of a "neighborhood, district, city block or corridor." Your advocacy and the availability of assistance might make something happen! Applications made by your city or county are due by June 1, 2010.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)