A
“debriefing” of the 2011 Camp Sequoia Planner’s Retreat Study Session
by Robert L.
Borchard.
Is Planning a dying profession? I
think not! A “morphing” profession, perhaps. That is not to say that the
planning profession is not under stress, particularly in these times of our new
found “fiscal limits” at all levels of Government. We are, of course, are talking
about local government (city and county) planning. At higher levels of
government (federal and state) “Planning” seem to be thriving! There always
seems to be enough money to fund State and Federal “planning” efforts. At the
local level, however, things have been pretty tough these past few years. On
the horizon, it looks like things are going to get a lot tougher!
At
the San Joaquin Valley Division of Cal. Chapter APA Planner’s Retreat at Camp
Sequoia, Planning as a Dying Profession was focus topic for a Saturday morning
discussion group. I was fortunate enough to be given the opportunity to lead
this discussion at this beautiful retreat located at the gateway to
Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park in Central California.
The
work session was inspired by a Web link with the headline “Is Planning a Dying
Profession”? It was written by a Planning Professor from Chapel Hill. In this
paper, Thomas J. Campanella, traced
the decline of planning back to Jane Jacobs and her 1961 “The Death and Life of
Great American Cities” linked at (http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&srchtype=discussedNews&gid=128742&item=52158934&type=member&trk=eml-anet_dig-b_pd-ttl-cn&ut=0-wFXuKPZRtkU1 )
He
claims that the “Jacobson movement” has lead to our “profession’s” decline:
·
It diminished the disciplinary
identity of planning.
·
The seeming paucity among
American planners today of the speculative courage and vision that once
distinguished this profession.
·
Privileging the grassroots over
plannerly authority and
expertise meant a loss of professional agency.
How
did we become a profession of Permit Processors? Who ARE the real
planners? One of Mr. Campanella’s statements hit home with me and was
the spark that inspired Planner’s Retreat discussion session; when local
planners were questioned about “why major innovative planning directions were
not initiated in the local planning Department”, the answer was that “they were
too busy ‘planning’ to come up with any big plans”!
The
discussion was far ranging and I could sense the frustration of most my peers.
Budget cuts had decimated staff resources in every local government planning
agency. The only planners who seemed to be untouched by this new governmental austerity
were the “planners” from “above”.
I
attempted to “narrow” the discussion to a couple key topics that I felt fairly
well defined the issue. They were:
- · Where Do YOU think the planning profession is headed?
- · What do you think distinguishes YOU, as a “planner” from other municipal employees?
- · What do YOU tell your children that YOU do for a living as a planner?
- · The proper role of a City Planning Director; Planner or Administrator?
- · From Permit Processor to Planner, how can we evolve?
- · The proper role/value of “citizen planners” in the planning “process”?
- · The role that our State laws and local codes play in degrading the value “planning”?
I
asked the participants to rank the suggested topics so that we could limit the
range of the discussion to fit the limits of our time for this subject. The group’s
choice was to discuss the role of “citizen planners” (mandated public
participation laws) and the impact of State Laws and mandates on local
planning. These two topics seemed to go to the heart of my peers concerns and
frustrations.
Perhaps
the greatest frustration was with our State Rule makers. Their frustration was
with the State’s apparent disconnect with the local planning process. Folks
staffing State and Regional planning agencies seemed to be going on their merry
way issuing new rules and edicts. that were, for the most part, unenforceable. The
simple fact is that there are few planners left in the “local” planning trenches
to carry out these marching orders issued from above!
Another
source of frustration was with “mandated” public participation standards that
did not promote good planning but rather promoted “nimbyism” or allowed local
planning decision processes to be “hijacked” by politically inspired agendas
that bore little or no relationship to local problem solving. For over an hour,
the group vented their frustration with the dysfunctional local government “planning
system” that local public agency planners were forced to work with.
We
talked a little about the changing world that we live and work in and how that
impacts our role as local government planning professionals. The concept of paradigm
shifts on such a massive scale (global warming, economic, demographic, change,
political extremism, etc.) and how that comes to roost in our local
communities. The idea that “all planning
is local” evolved for me that Saturday morning as I’m sure it did with many
other study session participants.
During
the Session Wrap-Up, I asked the attendees to describe their most important
“planning” project that they were presently working on and what they brought to
the table in the name of “planning”? There was a wide range of projects;
important projects. All of these projects had a unique and significant impact
on local cities or counties within which these planning professionals worked.
Interestingly
enough, none of these “local” planning projects had anything to do with the
large number of “planning” mandates that had been issued by the State of
California or the edicts of any of the “regional” planning agencies in the
state. Further more, the role of these “local” planners played in these
important “local” planning projects was typically an “administrative”, “collaborative”
or “coordinating” role. As the discussion progressed, it became apparent that
local planners were the “getter done” players in their respective local
governmental agencies.
It
was clear that the “planners” role had evolved or morphed into something a
little different than envisioned by Mr. Campanella and the other folks who
commented on his Essay. It became clear to all of us that “planning was not a
dying profession” it had simply changed to fit our changing social, economic
and political world. We were part of a New Planning Profession and we were
adapting to a changing world as best we could!
One
aspect of this “new” planning professional was the “multi-disciplinary” skills
that made these “planners” valuable players in the “local” planning game. They
were, in a very true sense of the word, “Renaissance” men and women. Unlike
their State and Regional Agency peers, these new age planners could not afford
to be narrow specialists in any given field or discipline.
The
new age local government planner had to have knowledge of traffic and
transportation engineering techniques but were not engineers. They had to know
how sewer, water and storm drain systems were designed but did not design these
necessary infrastructure systems. Air quality, biological/riparian habitats,
agricultural and urban economic system, they had a good working knowledge of
how these disciplines worked and played a critical role in coordinating these
different “schools” of thought to accomplish a “project” goal.
I
came out of this Session with a new understanding and appreciation of what we,
as planners, have become. I’ve read many of various “rants” about how the
“planning” profession had “drifted” from its “design” based “roots” and become
a “diluted” profession without a “place based focus”. This, I’ve come to
understand, comes from folks, mostly in academia, who have lost (or perhaps
never had) any real world involvement with “practitioners” in local planning.
This,
in large measure, explains the failure of many of the “one-size fits all”
regulatory schemas that have come “down” from our State agencies here in
California. Of course, the failure of California’s Housing Element Law is just
now beginning to be understood by many but that has not stopped the flow of
“formula” types of regulatory laws and standards. Most of these programs have
come from State Agencies staffed by individuals schooled in the theories that
“planning” is not multi-disciplinary “art form” of civic place. Though these
“planners” have been taught theories of “public participation” and understand
its techniques, few understand the strengths and weaknesses of the role of “citizen
planners”.
As I
listened to my peers, over the course of this morning Session, I came to
realize how (and why) planning, as a profession, has lost respect among many.
The entire organizational “top-down” structure of our State directed” planning
system has set US up to fail. The misguided Housing Element law is only one
example of “failed” State planning. The decline of our State’s economy to
perform competitively may be the direct result of the centralization of power
and administrative “authority” in Sacramento. It has killed the “local”
innovative spirit that is typically dismissed as “local politics” by academics
and State level administrators.
This
is not to say that we have problems of “regional” or “statewide” scope; we do!
But rather than provide local governments, cities, counties, special districts,
with a broad set of guidelines within which to devise solutions to OUR
problems, the “one-size fits all” solutions flow down from on high killing
“local” oriented solutions and adaptations. This arrogance that assumes that
the same solutions, to our problems, apply equally to a jurisdiction of
millions of people and a jurisdiction with under 10,000 has destroyed our
States economy and undermined our local governments effectiveness to govern. It
is killing our creative problem solving instincts as planners and stifled
innovation that once was the hallmark of California government.
This
arrogance exists at both the legislative and administrative levels of our State
Government. The vulnerability of our state elected legislators to the influence
of well funded lobbying groups has resulted in many of the misguided laws that
have spawned expensive and misguided regulatory systems. At the same time, our
state’s bureaucratic system has become completely insulated from direct
accountability to any elected Governor or Legislator. It has, in a very real
sense, become our “third” governmental estate.
So
here we are, a small group of professional “local” government planners,
discussing our “dying profession” on a beautiful sunny morning overlooking
Sequoia Lake. Maybe it was the thin air at the 5,000 foot elevation, maybe it
was the company. At any rate, for me, it was a “watershed” moment. At countless
small discussions that occurred throughout the day after our working session
was over, I came away from the Retreat with the impression that these feelings
were generally shared by my peers. We are not part of a “dying” profession!
One
thought that came out of Session that seemed to tie it all together was the
phrase “doing things right is not
necessarily doing the right thing”. Yes, we are mandated by “State Law” and
regulation to do “things” right but that does not relieve us, as Planners from
interjecting our voice into the process; do the “right” thing. That “planning” voice
is typically heard at our city council or board of supervisor meetings; before the
local elected officials whom we serve. Our voice, also, needs to be heard at
the State level. We, as local government planners, need to try and educate our
peers at the state level. We, through our professional bodies such as APA, the League
of Cities, CSAC, etc., need to try and get OUR message through to our State
elected officials.
No,
“Planning is NOT a Dying Profession”. That does not mean, however, that is
can’t be killed if we do not develop a clear understanding of our new role and
accept our new responsibilities. Planning, as a profession, has “evolved” from
a simple “design” oriented profession into a profession of individuals who
understand, and manage, the complex “city building” process. We, as
professionals, have grown. Once we understand our new role in local government
organization, we can regain the respect that has been lost; we can begin to
play and effective role in the organization and direction of our built
environments. We can lay claim to the title of “City Planner” in this new Millennium.
No comments:
Post a Comment