In reflection of this week's readings, we point to one storied example. Boston's Roxbury neighborhood is a hackneyed planning feat that cross a number of planning thresholds. From community organization through true "grassroots" mobilization, the scenario also presents an innovative approach to protect the residents, land owners, and the land itself. Through the creation of a land trust, stakeholders were able to pool their resources and preserve their future interests. "Trusts" feels more like a term that is reserved for the cash-rich, entrepreneur-type, but in actuality it is not a new concept to planning, land development, or property rights. Oftentimes, as the readings of this week suggest in more nuanced terms, the solutions to creative planning processes are right under our noses. It seems that TDRs, transfer of development rights, have only gained traction in the last ten years or so, but they are yet another planning tool that is right under our noses. They are detailed in many comprehensive plans, and accepted by city planning departments. Perhaps, if these tools have been present all along, property owners and residents do not have enough knowledge on their existence or ultimate use. Breeching into this topic actually segues into more theoretical planning practices. Is it the obligation of the government agency to educate property owner's on the subtle tools that could affect their property rights or be an instrument of solution in problem-stricken areas? Could the government have an incentive to not detail this information to property owners? How is it possible to educate everyone on the matter? The answer is that it is not. Few civilians are trained planners, lawyers, or real estate developers. So how do we bridge the communication gap in this situation? It would be costly, time-consuming, and, for lack of a better word, "tricky."
This forays into "advocacy planning," where the city planner takes on a cause for a certain neighborhood, enclave, or community acting as their advocate. Advocacy planning, arguably, does not have an extensive presence in the planning world. With the onset of the economic recession, cases have popped up across the country in response to the real estate bubble collapse, among other factors, to cope with defunct urban lands and the like. However, that still does not make advocacy planning instantly popular or practical. So, the question remains (though slightly evolved); how can planners, who are not only trained in technical methodologies, but also undeniably interested in the livelihood of citizens and communities, use their knowledge to provide support to property owners and blighted areas? It is not always within the realm of our duties to do so. As great as it would be, "planning" is not always initiating exciting and innovative projects because we know it would work or that its best. We have to lay the foundation for others (the private sector) to intervene within the framework set up by planners. We can use the comprehensive plan to nudge development in one direction or another, and if there's a budget surplus or amenable political climate then we might be able to initiate creative projects. Yet, we must accept a reality where that does not always happen (it is possible, though). Particularly, when we consider the future of planning for food production in a state like Florida (where comprehensive plans are legally mandated), there is no requirement or incentive to include elements expressly related to food production. Currently, we have to rely on citizens self-educating and put our trust in the language and tools laid out in comprehensive plans (TDRs, easements, etc.). Community gardens and food trucks are relatively new on the planning time scale, and many municipalities do not have the ordinances in place to accommodate them or in turn no precedence makes it difficult to establish such codes. Organizations like APA can use their state chapters to translate messages that promote sustainable food production planning and offer solutions in the meantime. Planning for food production cannot declare success until stakeholders are aware of the tools available to them, and have the resources to implement their unique visions.
You raise many valid points in your post, mainly the fact that planners are usually between a rock and a hard place when it comes to deciphering their roles in planning and working within their limitations to do what is right. Sustainable agriculture and land preservation is what were discussing here and similar to other planning principles the planner must understand their role in the public education of these principles. And while TDR's are relatively new it is a tool that planners should be able to communicate to the public, as well as other tools that could benefit them. Tools that are "under our noses" may be hidden due to the agendas of others, like how you described the government having an incentive to not inform property owners about their options. And that is where advocacy planning can be used, as specialized planners can advocate for these property owners. This would call for programs that can train these advocacy planners, which there are not a lot of already, so it may not be very feasible. Ultimately, we would need all stakeholders of food production to want a more sustainable system and work to attain the tools needed for this system as you have said.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! You bring up a lot of great questions about and challenges of "advocacy planning." I didn't know much about TDRs before this semester. I'd met a woman at an event back in Eastern KY last summer who had gotten a bunch of her neighbors and friends together and used the TDR strategy to protect their holler (valley in the mountains) in eastern Tennessee. But it didn't really click until reading this article. I feel that the government is best suited for the educational/information sharing role. I agree that it seems that most of this information is imparted by way of citizen self-education, or in some cases, nonprofit organizations. I also agree that there is a need for (increased and consistent) advocacy about these and other land preservation tools available for citizens.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this post Jamie, I think you brought up some great points. I think a point that a lot of planners eventually come to is how much can planners even influence social issues like this. I believe it would be very difficult at times to create this groundwork for the private sector in a way that planners deem appropriate. A lot of it seems like the creation of passive initiatives for long term benefits in the community. One of the bases of planning is listening to the people, and I find this especially true with what you pointed out about the need for citizens to self-educate. People on the ground and in the midst of the planned area are the ones who are going to first hand experience the good and the bad results. They are the ones who are going to have the best understanding on where there are gaps in planning and I think the combination of planner's expertise with this insight is very effective.
ReplyDelete