week of 1/15/03
 
 
 

The goal of good planning is the public good
By Mark Jamison

A few weeks ago I wrote a commentary that talked about the importance of developing a strong planning infrastructure within local government. I wrote of the futility of passing ordinances without giving any thought to the fundamentals of implementation and enforcement. I also wrote of the difficulty in establishing a meaningful public dialogue on matters of substance when government appears arbitrary and ill-conceived in its actions.

Apparently the ideas I attempted to articulate struck a chord. I heard from several people who indicated that the piece accurately reflected some of their concerns. Perhaps the most instructive reaction though came from Mr. Stacey Buchanan of the Jackson County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Buchanan called me and told me that several people had told him about the article, and that although he had not had time to read the piece it was important for me to understand that he was developing a plan that would address all of the concerns I might feel the need to express. He also indicated that it would be preferable if I were to avoid further comment until such time as his plan was unveiled.

In recent weeks the board of commissioners has dissolved the Jackson County planning board and passing reference has been made to the development of task forces to address planning issues. There has been some vague talk about a greater use of consultants and eventually hiring a professional planner. What has been missing has been details and more importantly an open public dialogue.

It would not be appropriate for me to comment on a plan that has yet to be unveiled. However, it is worthwhile to note that the problems with our planning infrastructure are not new or suddenly discovered. The problems with the implementation issues with respect to the soil and sedimentation ordinance have been known since the ordinance was passed over two years ago. Mr. Buchanan has been aware of the problems with the operation and oversight of the planning board for a year or longer. The inability of the county planning infrastructure to provide timely and comprehensive research and support has been obvious during the development of the cell tower and helicopter ordinances. These and other problems and issues are not new and there has been plenty of opportunity for a leader to step forward and raise these issues while encouraging and promoting public debate and participation in finding solutions.

There is an aphorism which states: “If you do what you’ve always done, it is more that likely you’ll get what you’ve always gotten.”

There is a common perception that planning is a series of clearly defined steps. That it is the development of a document that details who will be assigned to what tasks, what ordinances should be passed and what goals we should meet. This view of planning allows that we should arrive at a “comprehensive plan,” and that in doing this our problems will be solved and our paths will be clear.

I would argue that this is far too simplistic an approach that tends to overestimate what can be accomplished in the short term and underestimate what can be done over the long term. This approach is more about control than leadership. It is more about limiting debate, discussion and dialogue than about reaching consensus and promoting understanding.

Government and the political process is reactive and short term by its very nature. Rare is the politician who has the patience and courage to articulate a long-term vision and encourage the debate and participation needed to get there. Our desire to control problems in the relatively short term often places limits on the tools at our disposal. Too often today’s solution becomes tomorrow’s problem.

A perfect example of this is much of the land-use planning that has been implemented over the last 50 years, particularly when applied to truly rural areas. We talk about sustaining our rural landscapes, about preserving our rural communities and yet the way in which we define ourselves and the tools we propose to use were created 50 years ago and are largely responsible for creating suburban sprawl and fostering the dangerous and selfish attitude of NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard) or worse the new calculus of Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody (BANANA).

These attitudes are unrealistic and are absolutely antithetical to the principles of sustainability. They create an atmosphere and an environment that encourages those with the most money and power to simply push problems down hill. They allow us to avoid making difficult choices and more importantly they cut off discussion and dialogue by allowing every issue to be defined and discussed in terms of narrow self-interest.

Jackson County faces many difficult and complicated challenges. Many of those challenges defy compartmentalization and the standard way of looking at things. How do you account for the impact of unrestrained growth as promoted by both the Cherokee and WCU? How do you deal with a fragmented state government which cannot get its fiscal house in order and yet defines and controls the tools that local governments may use? How do you sustain traditional rural cove communities and preserve farmland and open space in the face of rising land values, increasing pressure on property taxes and the spread of trophy houses and development? How do you reconcile so many competing and diverse agendas?

We need to plan, but we need to understand that the planning function of government is not merely the act of reacting to the stimulus of an irritation and devising an ordinance to address that irritation; rather it is a mindset, a mentality, and its greatest value may not be in proposing legislative answers but in helping maintain an ongoing dialogue that allows us to both better understand who we are and the nature of the problems that confront us. By encouraging and fostering this mindset and mentality we may begin to better understand that different segments of the population have different images of themselves and their neighbors. They define differently the problems and challenges that face their communities. Most importantly we may begin to see that these different images and problems are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Developing this mindset, committing to this dialogue, inculcating the value of a continued process of planning and critical examination can help us create a more common language. In doing this we can begin to more clearly define where community begins and where narrow self-interest ends. We can understand when it is necessary to sacrifice for the greater good and when it is essential to preserve individual rights and initiative and perhaps how we can redefine those things to be more in tune with each other.

Planning is thinking. Good plans are rarely just “unveiled,” for by definition, unveiling implies a finished and complete process and planning is an ongoing and messy process that flourishes best in the open and demands broad discussion and input.

Government, at its most fundamental level, exists for the purpose of devising, promoting and implementing plans for the promotion of the public good. If we fail to understand this, then government becomes nothing more than the arbitrary application of power to benefit narrow self-interest.

Mark Jamison
Cullowhee

mij918@earthlink.net