I just returned from the People's Republic of China and want to share a lesson I learned about land use planning. For three decades, the Chinese communists used their totalitarian power trying to perfect the most centralized economic,
social and land use planning system in modern history. Given the historical
plight of the Chinese peasants, it can be argued that this was done with the
best of intentions.
However, with the death of Mao Tse-tung in 1976, the new communist regime began
to publicly admit that the usefulness of centralized planning had come and gone.
They realized that, although they had some national success using this approach,
they could not compete internationally against the more efficient decentralized
free market system. Indeed their early success was their undoing. The now well-educated
and well-fed Chinese people were tiring of the government telling them what
they could not buy or do. In the new information age of cell phones, satellite
disks and Internet access it was impossible to hide the bounty and freedom of
the new global economy.
The important lesson, for those of us involved in making land use planning
policy, is that the more centralized the land use planning system, the more
dysfunctional it may become. Bigger is not always better. This is especially
true for large scale planning areas - like states - where mandated land use
planning often proscribes a "one size fits all" planning regime that
can preempt local planning authority and workable local solutions. State-mandated
land use planning often ignores the major geographic differences in geomorphology,
land economics, historical development patterns and cultural beliefs of specific
places.
Then why do it? The reason is that a larger planning area - like a state -
is a political convenience for special interest groups. Unfortunately, the individual
citizen's role is diminished because it is no longer local.
Nowhere is the promise and the reality of state-mandated land use planning
more contrasted than in the Pacific Northwest states of Oregon and Washington.
Each has taken a dramatically different policy approach in its implementation.
After 26 years, Oregon has developed the most centralized planning program
in America. In the 1970s, Oregon experienced rapid population growth from in-migration.
To address this problem, a bipartisan state legislature and a progressive Republican
governor, named Tom McCall, delegated powerful administrative rulemaking authority
to a single autonomous state agency governed by an independent commission.
However, many of the elected officials who created the agency did not fully
understand the unanticipated consequence of 16 years of the Oregon voters electing
self-proclaimed environmentalists to the Governor's Office. The governor controls
the appointments to the commission and can veto all legislative attempts to
limit the agency's power. This has resulted in the unchecked policy expansion
of a quasi-legislative body that is only accountable to one person.
There are only two viable constitutional venues left to Oregon voters who want
to limit the agency's authority - the initiative process and the courts. In
the year 2000 election, Oregonians passed a nationally unprecedented statewide
ballot measure that greatly expanded the compensation allowed for property takings
- even beyond that allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court. This was a vote against
the heavy-handed and often indifferent actions of many Oregon cities, counties
and regional planning agencies that had used mass down zonings and exactions
from property owners in the name of "livability."
The ballot measure was foreshadowed by the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case
on property takings that originated in Oregon (Dolan v. City of Tigard). The
city of Tigard, like many other Oregon jurisdictions, accepted the statewide
planning philosophy that there was no such thing as an unreasonable exaction
from a land use permit applicant. In this case, the city demanded a bike path
dedication in exchange for approving improvements to an existing plumbing store.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected this practice and held that any exaction must
be "roughly proportional" to the actual public need. In other words,
the court found it improbable that a citizen would buy a water heater or a toilet,
and take it home on the back of their bicycle.
The state of Washington passed its Growth Management Act 10 years ago, but
it provides for more local control. First, it only required fast growing urban
counties to comply with the act. Second, the state did not create an autonomous
bureaucracy to promulgate and enforce legally binding "goals" and
administrative rules. Instead they created three regional geographic hearing
boards whose job it is to review local land use decisions based on local conditions.
This has resulted in some inconsistent decisions, but these are being resolved
by the Washington courts.
The latter is important in Washington because the state Supreme Court is elected by voters who favor a more populous approach in its decision-making. By taking the Washington approach, the legislature and the courts have kept tight control over their public policy role and not delegated it away to some unaccountable and untouchable bureaucracy. In Oregon, the state Supreme Court is elected by the same urban environmental ist voters who elect the governor. This has resulted in a court that is more likely to invalidate the will of the voters on property rights issues.
It is ironic that in the mid-1970s communist China started to curtail centralized
planning and that at the same time Oregon began to embrace it. The Chinese lesson
for the Pacific Northwest is clear. There is a limit to the amount of centralized
planning that the people of a place will tolerate.
Richard H. Carson is a writer
and planner who lives in the Pacific Northwest. He was the editor of the "Oregon
Planners Journal" and an elected official of the American Planning Association
(APA). He maintains APA's "Internet
Planning Media" and the independent "Planning
Utopia" Internet websites. Rich was in Hong Kong, Nanning and Guangzhou
in the People's Republic of China from June 14 to June 28, 2001.
Comments
Central planning
What would be your opinion of the central planning in the U.K.? Certainly, central planning in the U.K. has had a significant impact on preserving greenbelts. Where as in the USA local governments have local power and have allowed, if not encouraged, sprawl. Which opens up a different debate on many issues.
Overstatement
Preface: I have worked in Oregon as a planner for about fifteen years - thirteen for counties and the last two for that "single autonomous state agency," the Dept. of Land Conservation and Development.
Since I have only worked for the state for two years, I only had the same outside-looking-in perspective of DLCD as Mr. Carson for most of the time I've been involved. I can attest that, as a local planner, my concept of DLCD and the commission, LCDC, were somewhat similar to that expressed in Rich's piece.
Now, having been on the "inside" (no, I won't teach you the secret handshake), I can assure you that all three legs of the ol' government stool are alive and kicking. An "unchecked policy expansion of a quasi-legislative body that is only accountable to one person" is a myth. While our governors since McCall have all supported planning and not allowed it to be evicerated, the legislature is hardly ignored in policy formulation.
Mr. Carson portrayed LCDC as running amok and willy-nilly trampling on the common folk of the state. While over the years the commission has made unpopular policy choices, the rule-making activities I have witnessed are not heavy-handed and the commission has been very willing to make choices based on a wide range of views. It may not have always been this way, but it is now.
Regarding why the compensation measure passed last year, it's incredible to me that Mr. Carson suggests there was one reason why people voted for it. In reality, there were many different reasons.
Wrong Question
It is unfortunate that this article employs an irrelevant comparison of Oregon's land use planning system to that of China. The more important issue of whether Oregon's or Washington's statewide planning system is more effective and reflective of the will of the people gets lost in the shuffle.
As a longtime planning consultant who has done work in both states, I know that Mr. Carson is correct when he points out the tremendous power the people of Oregon have placed in the executive branch of government. The governor appoints the members of the Land Conservation and Development Commission, which establishes the Administrative Rules that mandate much of planning policy for city and county governments. The governor also appoints the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development, which prepares the draft rules and reviews the comprehensive plans and development ordinances of local jurisdictions for compliance with state land use statutes and administrative rules. Further, the governor appoints, with Senate approval, the referees who serve on the state's unique Land Use Board of Appeals. LUBA, rather than the circuit courts, is the first step of appeal of a local land use decision.
The power vested in these agencies in molding local land use decisions is tremendous. Administrative Rules impact a wide array of fundamental land use policies as diverse as densities of development which must be achieved within local jurisdictions, the amount of farm income which must generated before a dwelling can be built on land zoned for exclusive farm use, to the design of the transportation system serving neighborhoods and commercial developments.
By picking the people who make the rules, adopt the rules, and interpret the rules, the governor can dramatically influence local land use policy. With the governor having the veto power in a state which is fairly evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, the legislature is restricted in its ability to moderate land use policy issues.
Our system of government recognizes the value of checks and balances between the three branches of government. In Oregon, in my opinion, the land use planning power is weighted far too greatly towards the Executive branch.
Centralized Planning
This article is an excellent example of persuasive writing. It moves ahead rythmically at a nice easy pace leading to a conclusion that seems to make intuitive sense.
The vocabulary is easily at the collegiate rather than professorial level. This conveys intelligence of the author without any intellectual superiority affectations. This seems to make me want to trust Rich because he is not talking "up" or "down" to me.
Rich's opinions are stated as facts and he continues to build his argument on successive opinions moving the audience closer to the denouement.
I totally disaggee with his opinions and conclusions pretty much accross the board. This comparison between the two may be able to be made, but it would take a little more elaboration of his wide generalizations to provide a comfortable comparison.
Heck, I think it would be pretty difficult to compare how different regions in Oregon implement the State mandated goals.
I do wonder what this article is intended to accomplish. I imagine it will annoy quite a few Oregonians and Chinese, but to what purpose?
I do know that if you do not like the Oregon state methods you have a whole bunch of options. This includes moving to Washington or even getting involved as a citizen to influence local implementation of the State Goals. What options did the Chinese have?
China Central planning
Richard,
You sound like the typical American who visits China for a brief period,does not thoroughly examine the situation and draws the wrong conlusions.As they say here in China--"the Americans don't listen and the British don't remember" --JMC
Apples and Oranges
In no way do the statewide planning programs in Oregon and Washington approximate the type of centralized, controlled planning seen in communist China (or the formerly communist Soviet Union). I worked in Oregon from 1978 to 1984 and have worked in Washington since 1985. I would agree that even-handed, fair implementation of the state-wide land use goals is critical to its success and support by the citizenry. The beauty of our democratic system (unlike China's) is that the voters can, and do, express their wishes at the polls. Rather than paint those individuals elected in Oregon as "self-proclaimed environmentalists" I think a more accurate portrayal is that the voters, as reflected in those they chose to elect, were forward thinking enough to see that sprawl is costly and not in the best interest of the State. Washington's more "populist" approach has resulted in many more years of sprawl, with the result that the Puget Sound Region is ranked second in the country in traffic congestion - not something to point to with pride.
The voters in Oregon have rejected several attempts to repeal the state-wide planning goals (there were at least 2 initiaves on the ballot while I lived there). The voters in Washington have done likewise. State-wide land use planning is here to stay, thankfully. The trick is to implement the program in an even-handed manner .
More balance please....
As a planner and educated citizen who often enjoys the perspective and opinion of Mr. Carson, I was a bit dismayed by the China piece. Over-simplification of Communist China, not to mention our own planning trials and tribulations, have lead many astray in the past. This seems a glaring example of such trivialization.
Of course there will be drawbacks to highly centralized planning, but the changes made in 1976 China are very questionably linked to "strong" centralized planning failures. The economic and social failures, while linked, are not products of their central planning system, but rather by-products of centuries of citizen suppression and forced servitude. The massive shifts in climate and reduced viability of typical subsistence farming, increasingly desparate classes, as well as the encroachment of tyrranical corporate sweatshop compounds like those of Nike, Timberland, WalMart, Keds/Stride-Rite, etc., have all helped spur on social and economic unrest within the country.
Keep up the deep thinking and challenges to "mainstream" planning, but maybe leave China out of it.
Perspective #2
Carson's comments about the way the planning process works in Oregon is right on. Everything is Salem (the state capital) oriented.
People on the coast or in the mountains do not have a clear voice in how their communities are to sustain themselves. The only concern is what the valley people want to see in these areas.
I work in Oregon when LCDC started and we knew it would be nothing but trouble and it is.
Where would you rather live?
I disagree - I would much rather live in the properly planned Portland metro area with decent mass transit and preservation of real downtowns then the endless sprawl of Vancover or Kings County. Quality of Life matters and Washington has none.
A little perspective
First off, I freely admit that I have not witnessed first-hand the planning functions of either China or the state of Oregon. However, Carson's comparison between the methods of Maoist China and contemporary Oregon seems a bit glib.
Oregon's planning functions may be more centralized and more politically unaccountable than those elsewhere in the U.S. However, no authority in Oregon is attempting to "hide the bounty and freedom of the new global economy," as the Chinese government has done. And to imply commonality between the actions of Oregon's regional planning body and the authoritarian terror unleashed by Mao upon the Chinese would be at least hyperbolic, if not in extraordinarily poor taste.
It should be remembered that many countries have found different ways to balance private property rights and public planning authority. The U.S., for instance, favors property rights far more strongly than most of Western Europe. Does this make say, Germany, a bastion of Maoist centralized planners?