|
I
<br />I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />profl~ssionals' education and medical care; public,
<br />private and nonprofit efforts in research and develop.
<br />ment and in quality control; and market, regulatory
<br />and persuasive approaches to improving health. In
<br />health care as well, Minnesota has been one of the
<br />real innovators in experimenting with improvements
<br />in the system.
<br />
<br />Planning and dec]sion-making--important components
<br />of effective gowrnance--are becoming ever more
<br />closely linked operationally and institutionally. The
<br />pressure in our society for both more decentralization
<br />and more effective decision-making bas brought
<br />about t~vo things. First, the myth that planning must
<br />be centralized and authoritarian has been shattered.
<br />And second, virtually everyone agrees that better
<br />decision-making and better' planning go hand in hand--
<br />perhaps especially when they are pursued in decen-
<br />tralized and democratic settings.
<br />
<br />These changes and the resultant problems are partic-
<br />ularly apparent in metropoti£an areas. It is therefore
<br />crucial that appropriate methods and mechanisms
<br />of governance be developed for metropolitan areas,
<br />where most of the people and jobs are located in
<br />post-industrial societies.
<br />
<br />The Twin Cities Area is a valuable laboratory for
<br />exploration of the kind of metropolitan order needed
<br />to foster the general health, safety, and economic and
<br />social welfare of metropolitan residents, and the way
<br />that order should be promoted. It provides an
<br />excellent setting for studying what kind of planning,
<br />decision-making and governing processes may be best
<br />for metropolitan areas. Twin Cities Area govern.
<br />ments, including the MetropoIitan Council and the
<br />State Legislature, have been among the most
<br />innovative nationally in exploring new forms and
<br />processes of governance for metropolitan areas.
<br />
<br />Institute faculty view Minnesota's Metropolitan Land
<br />Planning Act as a particularly innovative approach to
<br />some important metropolitan and local concerns
<br />(e.g., land use, public facilities, housing, capital
<br />improvements programming axed official controls..)
<br />Since implementation of the law involves so many
<br />governmental units at several levels, it is an excellent
<br />case study of an attempt to improve planning and
<br />decision-making in a context of shared power. The
<br />study is expected to uncover most of the crucial
<br />issues involved in developing a doctrine of shared
<br />power in this setting. It also should make possible
<br />the development of new or reworked practical
<br />theories and philosophies for sharing power in
<br />metropolitan areas.
<br />
<br />Specifically, the study of the Land Planning Act is
<br />doing three things:
<br />
<br />-- Providing information, analyses and recommenda.
<br /> tions relevant to the law and its implementation.
<br />-- Exploring implications for the sharing of power
<br /> between governments and at different levels of
<br /> government, and among public, private and
<br /> nonprofit sectors.
<br />-- Exploring implications for how planning and
<br /> decision-making should be carried out in shared
<br />
<br />2
<br />
<br />relationships (i.e., how different types of phmning
<br />and decision-making may be appropriate for
<br />different functions and different levels of govern-
<br />ment}.
<br />
<br />The first phase of the study, begun in 1980, will cost
<br />about $40,000. It covers completion and regional
<br />review of the local comprehensive plans required by
<br />the ]aw. To date, 90 percent of the data has been
<br />collected. Representatives of 75 units of government
<br />are participating.
<br />
<br />In the second phase of the project, effects of imple-
<br />menting the local plans would be studied, including
<br />effects on regional plans and operations. The second
<br />phase, planned for 1982 to 1984, would cost about
<br />$130,246; it is not funded yet.
<br />
<br />Capital Improvement Programs Vital to
<br />Local/Regional Planning
<br />
<br />Picture this scene:
<br />
<br />Joe Citizen, home from a grueIing day at work, has
<br />his weekly neighborhood newspaper in hand, his pipe
<br />on the table beside him, and his weary body draped
<br />loosely in a soft chair, eyelids at half mast.
<br />
<br />Suddenly, his eyelids pop wide, his face reddens, his
<br />body stiffens, he ]caps from the chair and shouts,
<br />"Those stupid clowns at city hall (counW court-
<br />house, township hall, school district office) are plan-
<br />ning a million dollars in street improvements (utility,
<br />highway, building improvements) next year, and our
<br />taxes are going to skyrocket!!
<br />
<br />As the scene closes, Joe is dialing his city council
<br />member and mayor to give them his unexpurgated
<br />version of the situation. Then he calls his friends and
<br />neighbors to organize a single-issue coalition to fight
<br />the expenditures.
<br />
<br />An unplanned expenditure program and today's eco-
<br />nomically oppressed citizen are an explosive mixture.
<br />So don't drop a major construction or acquisition
<br />project on citizens without a well-planned capital
<br />improvement program (CIP).
<br />
<br />A well-planned CIP includes information about the
<br />program and projects of interest or concern to the
<br />city council (county board, town board, school
<br />board) and to the citizen who will use, and pay for,
<br />the services. You know best what information
<br />citizens in your community want, but at a minimum,
<br />a CIP should include the following:
<br />
<br />
<br />
|