The Need For Improved Democracy In Planning

29 September 2005 - 5:00am
Author:

Ken Snyder, Director for PlaceMatters.com, argues that improvement in planning can only come from bringing democracy and accessible technology into the decision-making process. Cities around the country have successfully utilized these techniques, argues Snyder, and it's time for other planners to follow suit.

Photo: Ken SnyderImproving Democracy in Planning

"For democracy to flourish citizens must become more engaged, empowered, and assertive, and institutions of governance must become more inclusive, transparent, and responsive." (Rockefeller Brothers Fund website)

How often do we see the words democracy and planning in the same sentence? It's true that increasing public participation has made its way into mainstream planning initiatives, but getting people (even hundreds of diverse people) to show up to a meeting does not necessarily improve the planning process or planning outcomes.

I would argue that in order to truly improve the way planning decisions are made, and the quality of those decisions, planning agencies and institutions must a) commit to the notion that democracy in planning is worth improving, and b) take advantage of a variety of communication, visualization, mapping and impact analysis tools to make it happen.

Planning and related land use issues at the local level present one of the greatest opportunities for improving participatory democracy and yet most public participation in planning today is periodic and reactive. Real democracy in planning should ensure that the public participates in regular and iterative discussions with planners and community officials to pro-actively set the course for growth and development in their community.

The public should be part of a process that develops the proposals and creates discussions about whether or not a proposed development project is acceptable. In this case, the quality of public involvement can be measured, not only by the number and diverse nature of people who participate, but also by the quality of the decisions made and the level of improvement to the democratic nature of decision making.

To foster democracy in planning, information and public engagement need to be inextricably linked to the decision making process. Traditionally, planners and experts have kept information and the tools to complete their jobs to themselves. But now, information is at everyone's fingertips, and tools for community design and decision making (also called decision support tools) can help all of us digest and visualize the complicated nuances of issues, understand probable impacts of different strategies, and identify potential solutions. Many communities, both small are large, are at the forefront of integrating these cutting edge technologies into their planning processes. See, for example, how:

  • Visualization and mapping tools were used in a small Rocky Mountain town to demonstrate the visual and physical impacts of a proposed development plan, giving community members an opportunity to set a new direction for future growth.
  • Online mapping and communication tools were integrated into a public education and input process to identify the best future uses of abandoned and vacant properties in the city of Philadelphia.
  • GIS modeling, visualization, and public participation techniques were combined by Sacramento Council of Governments to help citizens plan how their neighborhood should grow and change. Through a real-time iterative process, using an online computer mapping and analysis tool called PLACE3S, the participants saw for themselves how every decision they made, such as changing zoning designations, might play-out over the next 50 years.
  • Keypad polling and wireless laptops have been used in public meetings around the country to gather resident input and instantly feed back ideas, concerns, and solutions for more in-depth consideration.

Working side-by-side with an informed public, officials and experts can take advantage of the wealth of decision support tools to create and institutionalize long-term participatory processes that facilitate civic engagement, resolve conflicts at different scales, and address the complexities and rapid changes of community life.

Orange County Florida—A Case Study in Progress

Keep an eye on the Orange County Planning Division (OCPD) in Orlando, Florida, which recently embarked on an initiative to build upon their internal capacity to enhance decision making in land use planning. The OCPD was chosen by PlaceMatters (a program of The Orton Family Foundation) to participate in a Community Planning Collaborative.

The goal of this year-long initiative is to enhance the quality of planning decisions in Orange County, Florida, and to create a national forum (October 27-30, 2005 in Orlando, Florida) to demonstrate how the integration of public participation and technical tools can enhance planning and decision making processes in all communities. A number of the tools described above will be used throughout the CPC event, providing participants with a variety of opportunities to observe them in action and speak directly with the tool providers about how they can be applied to real planning situations in other communities.

The challenge before us is to identify the best strategies for public agencies to choose, adopt, and institutionalize decision support tools that fit the needs of their particular communities. One of the best ways to begin is to observe other communities on the cutting edge of decision and get informed about what tools and techniques are available to us.


Ken Snyder is the Director for PlaceMatters.com, a national organization working to engage communities in democratic, holistic and place-based planning.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Improvement in Planning

Konrad J Perlman
konrad.perlman@verizon.net
I agree with everything you say in your article. I am particularly familiar with the community planning process, the need for more democracy in planning, and the use of GIS and visualization tools in plan-making.

I co-developed one of the first GIS in the US in Washington, DC in 1976. The system contained all available data connected to properties and also included survey data on condition and vacancy. It was a tool that assisted formulating housing policy for the city. When I left the project, the system continued but its use as an analytic tool died.

I also used a very robust fiscal impact model to test the feasibility of private urban renewal on the waterfront, long before today's public policy and developers' concentration in that area. It also contained all relevant data on taxes and public costs, and could assess the costs of benefits, in terms of tax dollars and needed public services. It proved the project beneficial to the city, but the project never went ahead.

I was later a 2D and 3D (visualization) consultant to the DC Office of planning. Not only could we easily map any information contained in the geo-database. But we could model the entire city from aerial photo data; and draw in new buildings and examine their costs and benefits. When I left the project, the 2D GIS was used but noone ventured to use the 3D GIS applicaiton.

My urban renewal days were filled with community planning participation, not of the kind practiced today. But I was very familiar with the fault lines then. And I am happy to see vast improvements by means of public charrettes.

I say all this because there are some caveats I want to add to your support of greater democracy and the use of decision-support systems.
The challenges are to truly engage as much of the public as possible; to get planners to be trained in and use in a public forum both 2D and 3D GIS mapping and visualization technologies; and for decisions to be made on both visual and fiscal/environmental/transit impacts on proposed plans for development.

My experience with planners in the DC region is that they lack the visual sense and future of an area, because they are not taught that in school. They also have little familiarity with urban design, where the plan hits the road. Therefore, they are reluctant and few, if any, planners use these tools and community charrettes to expand community planning. Efforts like Envision Utah, which employed some of all of the technologies and a lot of community planning, is being proposed here with no-takers so far. The development community in league with local politicians' support to expand their reputations with any kind of economic development are against these better planning techniques. And with the planners' lack of training in analysis, visualization, and true community planning in the mold of Envision Utah, the whole process is enabled by planning staffs who fear for their jobs and have no risk taking skills.

The planners need better training in decision support systems, visualization, community planning, and risk taking. The politicians need to be activists in better planning and development for everyone, not just the high tax payers and generators of wealth. And the federal government and the private sector need to devise funding programs and promote a positive urban policy aimed at social and economic equity for all citizens.

The decision-support technologies need further development. I test community viz, which is high on analysis and low on visualization; and it is geared to the expert and not the desk-top users. The ESRI GIS software is too technical, counter-intuitive, and not user friendly to promote widespread use by the desktop planner, as opposed to the current audience of "experts". The improvements should come from the users, but there is great indifference on the part of the middle-of-the road planner and most architects and urban designers. The latter two still believe and prefer the 2B pencil/drawing pen, T square, drawing board, and a little dose of CAD is just fine, also used by "experts".

All of what I have said, I have said for years, while I was developing or widely using decision-support systems and promoting true "community planning". I started my career working for urban renewal activist mayors and other city governments, with a lot of commitment of the federal government, e.g. the Great Society. That acitivism and federal government support did not continue, and now has been almost totally withdrawn, leaving the US without an urban policy. Until all of these things I mention above, certainly and most prominently activist city, state, and federal government, none of the improvements to the planning process will take hold in a serious and long-term way.

This is not "chicken little" talking. It is an unfortunate reality all of us should know, because by knowing where are, we will know where we have to go, devising strategies to get there. Defeatism and ignorance makes for hopelessness. The future can be different from the present.

PlaceMatters conference a disappointment...

I attended the PlaceMatters conference in San Francisco and did not find the computer software programs to be user-friendly enough for the general public. They might be useful in planning departments, but for their use in hands-on exercises, visioning, community-based planning, etc, I expect the general public would find them exasperating and meaningless. I hope Place Matters has improved their visioning software since the 2002 conference.

"Education is the sleeping pill that makes dreams happen" - Peggy Hill

Bookmark and Share
Despite its small size, San Pierre was once a thriving community. It was home to more than 34 different businesses, and was surrounded by farmland and people gainfully employed in agriculture, retail sales, banking or other service industries.