Making Ripples: post-corporate adventures in Floyd County Virginia

The Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association embraces reality

I am beginning to have hope that there will be productive dialogs between those planners who would like to make great communities happen and those of us who live in communities we love and wish to retain that which is great about them.

These words from Jeryl Rose Phillips, AICP, President, APA Virginia and the following essay give me hope, even while they reveal a lack of understanding of the power of open communication on the Internet:

More and more, we as planners will be confronted with a new form of political activism that is challenging the basic premises of why we plan for communities and the value of planning.  This growing activism not only here in Virginia, but all around the country, necessitates we be informed and be rationale, not emotional, in our response to it.  The following has been prepared by our Chapter VP for Legislation & Policy at the recent encouragement of the APA Virginia Board of Directors and we hope you find it a useful resource.

Dealing with the New Activists—What Planners Should Know

The newly‐energized and politically active citizens who have begun to dominate the American political landscape over the past several years will continue to be a force to be reckoned with for years to come. It is impossible—and would be unfair—to try to paint them with a single brush, but there are some things that the planning community should be cognizant of as we move forward in this changed political landscape. At the risk of oversimplification, here are some thoughts to consider.

Who are the new activists?

To a great extent the new activists truly are new to the process. They are not old political hands and to a remarkable—and laudatory—degree, they seem to be being relatively immune to being co‐opted by existing parties or the political establishment. Indeed, “None of the Above” seems to be the favorite electoral choice of many of these new activists. This means that they are not familiar with the norms and vocabulary of the established political process and frankly find both to be problematic for what they believe are the requirements of American democracy. Thus, the folks who continue the same old vocabulary will be tarred as being of the same old politics marked by pluralism, compromise and delay in making critical decisions on issues and policy directions for which the new activists want to see a change from the status quo.

What are the issues?

Again, it would be unfair to settle on a single issue as the situation is far too complex. However, to the extent that there are three unifying issues they are the national debt, an overreaching federal government and fear of diminished property rights, each of which is viewed under the lens of the changing demographics of America. And, many are truly passionate about these things and see in them a threat to the freedom of choice and the American Dream as we have thought of it since WWII. Politics and politicians of all parties are viewed as a major part of the problem and by extension government at all levels is seen as the enemy. This has spurred a renewed interest in the concept of “states rights” and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Planning appears to be serving as a lightning rod for these core issues.

Is the Agenda Set?

I met Bruce Hull at the NRV Livability Initiative Kickoff meeting at Claytor Lake. He is a Professor of Forestry at the Virginia Tech College Natural Resources and describes himself as a social ecologist engaged in research and development programs striving to create thriving and sustainable communities.

He is one of many people who look at the Agenda 21 - local community link from a different viewpoint than I do but I have great respect for his viewpoints because he approached the issues with an open mind.

When I read his latest article, "Is the Agenda Set?", I saw common ground and shared concerns so I asked for permission to reprint it. I think you will enjoy it. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the Agenda Set?

Posted on August 30, 2011 by Bruce hull

An increasingly common complaint voiced at local planning meetings and repeated on Tea Party blogs is that sustainable development planning efforts have pre-determined outcomes: all the big decisions have been made before citizen engagement begins. Planners and their plans, according to this criticism, are restricted in what they do by federal programs that fund their planning projects.  Moreover, smart growth and green infrastructure principles that underlie these projects come pre-defined by federal agencies such as the EPA and by national and international professional organizations such as American Planning Association and ICLIE.

These complaints are not without justification.

In my own community the politics have become heated and Tea Party activists are demanding county Board of Supervisors terminate participation in a regional “livability” planning project or face impeachment. They point to a HUD, EPA, DOT federal program that gave local planners a million dollars to promote smart growth and worry the process is rigged.

They argue, correctly in my opinion, that smart growth principles are pre-defined to include compact buildings, walkable neighborhoods, and preserving open space. “Livabilty” principles, likewise, come pre-defined as practices promoting equitable and affordable housing.  Green infrastructure principles, as another example, are already established as growth boundaries, hubs and corridors.

These “principles”—which get handed down to communities—feel like pre-determined solutions to pre-identified problems. Are the communities that participate in sustainable development planning efforts being told by outsiders which problems to solve and how to solve them?  If so, it is understandable that citizens are concerned about losing control.

In earlier blogs I contrasted how Sustainable Developers differ from Tea Partiers in the core values they hold.  Tea Partiers do not accept the Sustainable Developer worldview; they see different problems and therefore may desire different solutions.

Perhaps regional sustainable development planning efforts should start by letting citizens define the problems they want to solve. For example:

• The US population is expected to increase by 150 million by 2050.  How many will be living in our community?  Where should we build the schools, roads, hospitals, water supply, and other infrastructure that will make these new residents welcomed, productive, thriving members of our community?
• Is energy independence a problem?  Will rising gasoline prices make commuting unaffordable?  What development patterns will best address these challenges?
• Are inequities in wealth, housing, and opportunity a problem in our community?  If so, how should they be addressed?  Is the problem sufficient to justify government intervention?
• Is water becoming sufficiently scarce and polluted to justify action?  What are the most cost efficient strategies to store and filter water, prevent flooding, and protect public health?
• What sorts of road, energy, waste, water, and information infrastructures do our community need to remain viable?  Can we afford to maintain what we have now if we continue business as usual?
• Are we losing jobs, economic development opportunities, and community vitality to an increasingly competitive global market?   If so, how should we respond?

Many planning professionals, and apparently these federal programs, share the worldview and value set of sustainable developers. They believe that there are real and pressing problems related to how we manage water, transportation, energy, and economic development.  They also accept that smart growth principles offer effective solutions to these problems.  As a result, their programs and processes jump right to smart growth solutions and bypass local community identification of the problems communities want their planners to solve.  The local planners can’t be faulted for this, they are just beginning where they are told to begin, and where for many of us it makes sense to begin.

However, around the country local planning meetings and public hearings are being challenged by Tea Party politics.  Decisions that a few years back seemed technical and mundane are now hotly contested, drawing huge crowds and strenuous objections.  It really is a great moment in local governance—even if meetings get bogged down in overheated rhetoric and grandstanding—because people are engaged, can learn from one another, and inform decisions shaping our shared future.  Local leaders should take advantage of this rare opportunity to build new collations and break the gridlock stalling needed responses to pressing problems. One way to make this happen is to begin at the beginning, which means agreeing on the questions being asked and the problems being solved.

-R Bruce Hull

 Constructing Sustainability