|
The Do ; loprnent evi Process'
<br />· A Means to a Noble and 6rearer End
<br />
<br />By James van Hernert, AfCP
<br />
<br />"You have no [entitlement] rights and you won't have any rights until and unless we give
<br />them to you," began the senior planner at the opening meeting between the planning
<br />department and a developer preparing a rezoning application.
<br />
<br /> On that sour note commenced what was to
<br /> become~a Ion§, miserable, and contentious
<br /> rezonin§ process that left very few stakeho~d~
<br /> ers satisfied. Ultimately, the final product was
<br /> acceptable, but not remarkable.
<br /> The planner's comment is perhaps an
<br />extreme example, yet is in. dicative ora not
<br />uncommon cultural frame of reference that
<br />views the developer as an untrustworthy and
<br />even unworthy adversary. The planner is the
<br />3uardian of the public good.' the developer
<br />cannot be trusted and may harm the public
<br />interest. Perhaps only this particular devel-
<br />operwas sin§led out and treated as such
<br />because he was considered "bad" or was pro-
<br />posing an unpopular or even undesirable
<br />to'd-use proposal, but that is not an appropri-
<br />ate approach to customer service, nor likely to
<br />best achieve community
<br /> At city hall, those managing their piece
<br />of the development-processing puzzle zeal-
<br />ous(y defend the public interest as dedi-
<br />cated and loyal public servants, In their
<br />view, this is done for the greater public
<br />good. Most are committed, skilled, and ded-
<br />icated to their work, putting in long hours
<br />(including many nights) often for relatively
<br />modest compensation.
<br /> tn addition to facing the fervently dedi,
<br />cared, albeit sometimes recalcitrant staff, the
<br />developer applicant frequently faces a bewil-
<br />dering array of procedures and permit require-
<br />ments. This bundle of approvals and permits
<br />may be called a system or process, but in
<br />many communities they effectively constitute
<br />an obstacle course requiring the endurance of
<br />
<br />a decathlon runner and the political skills of a
<br />Machiavelli. Many regulatory systems are not
<br />systems at all, They merely increased one zon-
<br />ing amendment at a time,.one plan at a time,
<br />one regulation at a time, and one process at
<br />time. "Secret codes,~ "arbitrary rules,"
<br />"[ncogs,istent interpretation," and "inexplica-
<br />ble delays" unfortunately are familiar refrains
<br />echoed across the land by applicants and
<br />their consultants.
<br />
<br />Local-govern m ent's
<br />tendenc',/to divide
<br />'responsibilities amon§
<br />various departments
<br />without strong
<br />coordination' oversig.ht
<br />also contributes to an
<br />organizational culture
<br />
<br /> cie,,'eiopment ~oai5.
<br />
<br /> Contrary to the goals of all players in the
<br />development §ame, mediocre projects and
<br />unsatisfied stakeholders too off:eh are the
<br />undesirable fruit of the development review
<br />process. Lost opportunities for creative and
<br />
<br />innovative developments abound, Far too
<br />often, the most desirable developments are
<br />8overned by the most complex re§uiations
<br />and review processes. In such an environment
<br />the best planners, dost§nors, architects, and
<br />developers may simply move on to the next
<br />jurisdiction. This is a particularly acute down-
<br />side for contra( cities, for by makin~ develop-
<br />ment more difficult, growth is fueled at the
<br />suburban edges. In penalizing new, different,
<br />and gr.ound-breaking development through
<br />extra scrutiny, planners provide incentive for
<br />the less risky standard cookie-cutter propos-
<br />als. Financial resources that could be avail-
<br />able for amenities and services are instead
<br />diverted to extended loan-carryin§ costs,-
<br />higher interest rates, and the need to
<br />redesign ~nd. resubmit project proposals more
<br />often than should be necessary.
<br /> With §fLoat effort and frustration we are
<br />often achieving what nobody wants, In the
<br />words of the cartoon characte[ Pogo: "We
<br />have met the enemy, and it is us."
<br /> It is perl~lexing to ponder why we are still
<br />here ah:er all these years. Perhaps it is not pti-
<br />madly a failure Of good intentions, inadequate
<br />management techniques, or a lack of education
<br />and technoio~,. More likely, the roots of the
<br />dilemma are cultural; they are the attitudes and
<br />behaviors of the profession, public planning
<br />departments, and local §ovemment in §eneral.
<br /> At the broad professional level most pro-
<br />fessiona~ pianners undertake their work as a
<br />moral journey--a vocation rather than an occu-
<br />pation, The AICP Code of Ethics reflects this in
<br />its eloquent statement of responsibility to the
<br />
<br />128 ZONING ?RACTIC~. t.a~
<br /> AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION J Qoge 2
<br />
<br />
<br />
|