City Inaction, or City in Action?
by Wendy Grey
|
Recently, a consultant who works primarily with government agencies stated that the difference between government and the private sector is that government is “all about process” and the private sector is “all about results.” “Process” is the way the city goes about its business. People expect city officials to listen, care, and be fair. “Product” is getting the job done right.
People also expect government to provide needed services in an efficient and cost-effective way. Cities that have found the right balance between process and product are able to deal with difficult and divisive issues, while those that have not are mired in a never-ending cycle of debate, conflict and inaction.
At no time is the challenge of balancing process and product more sharply defined than when cities face issues of planning and growth management. Planning and growth management directly affect people’s lives in many often contradictory ways. Business leaders support a new road project as an economic development tool, but residents near the road corridor worry that property values will diminish. Residents object to schools being sited too close to their subdivision because of increased noise and traffic, but they also want the advantage of sending their children to the newest school. When the conflict level is so high, how can cities treat residents with the consideration and fairness they expect and still provide for the needs of the public?
|
|
Unfortunately, the solution is not always found within government agencies. The conflicts between residents are reflected in the staff who deal with these problems every day. State traffic engineers tell the city council that congestion is the result of too few roads and intersections that are too small. Local planners say the problem is the lack of walkable communities and a viable transit system. School board planners say overcrowded schools are the result of the city approving too many subdivisions. Local growth management staff say the school board is not providing the infrastructure necessary to support growth. Now, not only is there conflict, there is no clear statement of what the problem is. With so much contention and confusion, it is surprising how much cities do get done to solve the critical problems they face.
Let’s consider two basic types of conflict cities face when trying to solve complex planning problems, and some strategies for dealing with them.
|
|
Citizen Participation – The Purpose of Process
When the city is about to take an action that will directly affect some residents, those residents come to city hall seeking “fairness.” They demand that government protect their interests – save their homes, protect their livelihoods, and preserve the tranquility and safety of their neighborhood.
Many other residents are directly affected by the city’s inaction. They insist that the city do something worthwhile with all those taxes it collects and get these problems solved.
Here, the balance between process and product is about balancing the city’s responsibility to the community at large with its responsibility to individuals who will be hurt by the city taking a necessary action. The process the city uses must include the following steps:
|
|
A clear and complete explanation of the problem and why the city must take action for the benefit of the community at large. It is important not to move past this step too quickly. As noted above, even experts will differ on what the nature of the problem is. Ultimately, the city’s elected leaders will need to clearly state what the problem is – and the clearer and sounder that explanation, the more reasonable the solution will be to the public.
A careful, honest study of all possible solutions to the problem. Once the problem is defined, a whole range of solutions that were not originally thought of may be generated. Good ideas come not just from city staff, but from the public, who live with these problems on a regular basis.
An opportunity for those who will be hurt (or believe they will be hurt) to be heard and have their concerns addressed to the greatest extent possible. Most people know that change is inevitable and that cities must evolve and grow. What can make that change palatable is the knowledge that their city leaders took the time to listen and to try to respond as best they could.
This process may seem too simple to work. In fact, it is based on the concept of “informed consent” that has been used successfully all over the country. The principle of informed consent is that residents will ultimately accept a solution that may be harmful to them as individuals if they believe that government has done everything they can to find the best solution to an important project, and that government is doing everything it can to reduce the harm to individuals. In other words, people will accept a painful decision if they believe the city has treated them fairly in the process.
|
|
Getting Everyone on the Same Page – Intergovernmental Coordination
Just as cities cannot move forward to build a thriving city without the consent of the public, they cannot succeed in their agenda without the cooperation of other governmental agencies. Counties, other municipalities, school boards, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and a myriad of state and regional agencies directly affect the city. Each of them is striving to find the right balance between process and product.
In this case, a key objective for the city is to encourage other agencies to develop a shared vision of the product. While it may be said that all public agencies are working for the “public good,” in reality, government agencies often seem to work at odds to each other. As mentioned earlier, disagreements often can be traced to different assumptions about the nature of the problem. Cities, which serve the public so directly and are so directly affected by the cumulative affects of the actions of all these agencies, are in the position to lead the way in defining and solving problems. And while technical staff can analyze data and evaluate solutions, determining the nature of the problem and the best solution is essentially a decision for policy-makers.
Key to achieving this cooperation role is building trust. This can take time – but it can be done if there is a consistent commitment. There are many ways to build and maintain a relationship with important agencies. Local governments, with the encouragement of the state, are cooperating with school boards on land use decisions and population projections. Many city councils appoint liaisons to other government bodies. These appointments need to be viewed as an ongoing responsibility, not one that has significance only when there is a crisis.
Another strategy is to look for easily attainable win-win situations. A traffic safety improvement near a school can be something the city, county and school board can all celebrate.
|
|
Conclusion
People look to their city government to address growth and development responsibly. This means that city government must actively manage the conflict inherent in dealing with these issues. Only then can cities strike the right balance between process and product.
Note: The concept of informed consent was developed by the Institute for Participatory Management and Planning. For more information, visit its Web site at www.consentbuilding.com.
Wendy Grey, AICP, is a planning and land use consultant. Previously, she was director of the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department for 10 years and worked for the Florida Department of Community Affairs. For the Florida League of Cities, Grey provides educational programs on planning and growth management to League members and analyzes the effects of proposed planning legislation on cities.
Reprinted from Quality Cities July/August 2003
Back to Top
Back to Quality Cities Resource Library Listing
|
|
