Planning and Visioning (11/12/02)

1. Would you please tell us who are the active participants in
the visioning process in your neighborhoods, city or county? Are they truly
representative of the whole community? How well are the participants
informed about the visioning process? How do you, or your agency, let the
residents know about what is "visioning" and its importance?
[ response ]

2. During the comprehensive updating process, was the original
"vision" of the community (including city or county) changed? If so, how
did the comprehensive plan deal with these changes?
[ response ]

3. Some groups will always be underrepresented in the
process, e.g. children, teens, elderly, perhaps minorities, immigrants,
tenants, non-resident small business owners, etc., etc.. How do you adjust
long-term community goals to take account of their interests?
[ response ]

 

Vincent Vergel de Dios
NBBJ
Visioning may also be focused upon specific places and developments such as
in multi-building master plans and campuses. This is a bit different than
comprehensive urban planning visioning but the principles are similar.

A couple of years ago, I was involved in visioning charrettes for the
Western Washington University South Campus in Bellingham. The key question
concerned just what is and should be the 'campus character'? A sample of
findings is attached FYI (see photo 1, photo 2, and document). Buildings, open spaces
and infrastructure are now being constructed following the patterns.

The participants were the university administration responsible for campus
plus the users (faculty, staff, students). The university president and the
campus gardener participated side by side, for example.

The original vision did change with changes in university leadership and
pressures for growth. A huge road up the middle of the valley and
surrounding parking lots were a concern, for example. Incremental steps
toward the re-focused vision, that had the appearance of completeness along
the way, was the approach to make the changes.

The resulting vision is quite general, a metaphor that provides a guiding
framework and direction. There is the ability to be more responsive to
specific interests by interpreting the concept as actual development occurs.

Gary Lee
City of Redmond
For Redmond's City Center (Downtown) in 1991, several venues were used
for "visioning". We used booths at Derby Days to show photographs of other
communities and asked people what they would like to see for their downtown.
We also had survey questions to see what they would like/dislike. For a
formal "visioning" charrette where we did a visual preference survey, we
sent direct invitations to all of the property and business owners, and
provided citywide press releases inviting anyone interested. For that
project we did lots of public relations to get people interested in
participating in providing a vision to work toward. We let people know that
we wanted to hear from them, before preparing draft plans.

This process seemed to represent the entire community as it evolved over
several events for over a year. It included education and confirmation
through the visual preference survey, and confirmation through follow-up
open houses and displays at events like Derby Days.

Michael Luis
The central difficulty with visioning exercises is that they are
inherently utopian and don't acknowledge the trade-offs and costs. It's
easy to get people to agree to a lovely vision, as long as they don't
have to worry about how to get there. It is easy to be inclusive, and
difficult to set priorities, especially when working at the grassroots
level. No one likes to tell a citizen that their priorities are not
going to be part of the regional vision.

A second challenge is scaling down. Visions are big and general, but
the steps to advance visions tend to be narrow and specific. A vision
that involves higher densities, transit, pedestrian-friendliness etc.
sounds nice -- very Parisian -- until someone proposes a big building
next door. We sold Sound Transit as a "vision," but now it is being
fought block-by-block, station-by-station. The monorail, if it passes,
will have the same fate. It will be fought pylon-by-pylon. Like
politics, all land use is local.

Most of our visions include a sort of 19th century urban setting. But
these evolved in a totally organic way, based on technologies, economics
and cultures of the time. There was no need to distribute costs. To
achieve a similar vision requires figuring out the balance of costs and
benefits. Most of the urban and suburban retrofitting required to
achieve our visions will be quite expensive and will happen over
generations. Most current residents have no incentive to be part of the
vision and will not see it coming to fruition in any reasonable
timeframe. Current residents will make few sacrifices for the vision
(see Fischel's new book on the Homevoter -- Harvard Press, I think.
He's at Dartmouth).

Which brings us to question #1 about participation. Those inclined to
participate in a community visioning process are from a very narrow
slice of the population. They are typically activists and stakeholders
who have probably already either bought into the vision or will be
opposed to it. This is especially true if participation means attending
public meetings and workshops.

Portland Metro did a study some years ago, and found that less than one
percent of the population was inclined to attend public meetings, and,
more importantly, their views were not at all statistically
representative of the population as a whole (if too much weight is given
to input at public meetings the results will be badly skewed). As a
result, Metro shifted its focus from public meetings to other forms of
communication that would involve a wider audience of citizens who are
interested but not inclined to go to meetings. They launched an
aggressive outreach program that resulted in a much richer set of data.

So my suggestion for better participation is to use scientific opinion
research techniques -- surveys, focus groups, individual interviews,
intercept interviews -- that both involve a statistically valid group
and can explore the costs and trade-offs inherent in various visions.
Just letting people know about input opportunities is never enough. You
have to go out and find people, and perhaps pay them for their time (as
in focus groups). You also need to prevent the vocal and knowledgeable
people from tainting the process by intimidating less knowledgeable
people or by putting ideas into their heads.

These research techniques are expensive and often seem alien to people
in local government who are oriented towards public meetings. They may
also be seen as manipulative, when exactly the opposite is true: public
meetings are almost always subject to manipulation, since the vote gets
stacked just by having people show up.

The concern about ethnicities is getting very real. Rather than
settling in the central city, recent waves of immigration are clustering
certain groups in smaller communities. Their lifestyles (larger,
multi-generational households in particular) may challenge the
prevailing vision. The question is, do we try to get them to adapt to
our vision, or do we incorporate theirs?

Another participation issue concerns governments themselves. Although
our visions call for things like narrower streets, innovative stormwater
management etc, public works departments, fire departments, and building
departments are slow to adapt their own standards to meet the vision.
These people need to be part of the visioning process.

The most frustrating problem is representing future generations. As
long as visions are locally derived and dominated by current residents,
we will struggle with meeting future housing needs. Current residents
have a very loud voice, and future generations have none. The only
voice speaking to issues of future housing availability and
affordability is the building industry itself, which will always be seen
as self-interested. It is disingenuous to have a vision that includes a
big shift to multi-family housing being drafted by a group of people
comfortably living in sacrosanct single family neighborhoods. A vision
process cannot be a way to pull up the drawbridge.

Judith Stoloff
Snohomish County
Our county is not doing visioning this time. Rather stakeholder
interviews with leaders in various sectors of the county.

Heather McCartney
City of Mukilteo
I was not here at the time when the first Comp Plan under GMA was developed. The document was written by the Planning Commissioners and City Council members. Over the last 5 years that I have been the Planning Director, I have monitored and adjusted the policies to reflect as accurately as possible the wishes and concerns of this community. I think the policies overall and thus the visioning process developed an accurate document that has been used throughout the years.

Anonymous
I did not work here during the time our comp plan effort began, however,
it's my understanding that most of the initial "visioning" participants
were cityhood advocates - those who were already involved in the
community in some way, and who were enthusiastic about incorporation.
Our records show that a great deal of the outreach was done by a cadre
of interns. By the time I took over the then-failing planning effort,
there was a large time gap between the visioning and the plan's
completion, and all but the die-hards had become disinterested. From
those who I met, I don't feel they were necessarily representative of
our entire community. Generally, I would say they were more
representative of the "haves" rather than the "have-nots." In
retrospect, I don't think those who participated were necessarily
well-informed about visioning - not in the sense that it means planning
for everyone, anyway; I think they focused on their own paradigm and
that means they don't want to deal with the underclass, crime, etc.
"Those people can just go elsewhere" seems to be the prevailing
sentiment. Perhaps this is a legacy for a city that's previously been a
"dumping ground" in the county for undesirable uses and their associated
problems? People's tolerance is stretched.

I would note that I've seen a key difference between "visioning" as
applied to the broader concepts of long-range planning (i.e., the
"touchy-feely, warm-fuzzy" stage) and public involvement during zoning!
Zoning is where implementation occurs. People can see a color on a map
attached to a comp plan, read a description intended to evoke a feeling
of the place associated with that color on the map, and think no more
about it. However, when they see a color on a map that means something
to them in terms of what they can do (and more importantly, NOT do) with
their land, a lot more of them show up at meetings! And then they yell
at you because "you never told me about this." People don't seem to
understand that the visioning paves the way for the zoning. This isn't
for lack of trying, either.

Not to get too esoteric, but I've come to believe there's a real
connection between this and the downfall of civic responsibility on
citizens' part. This is a MUCH broader issue which influences many
aspects of governance and everyday life. What it comes down to at the
long-range planning level is, visioning can only succeed inasmuch as the
individuals in your community are committed to participating.

Randy Kline
Jefferson County
Initially the participants were the public at large, however the planning process (talking early 1990s GMA process) was drawn out. Adding to that -- the visioning process really did not take into account what the GMA required in rural areas. This led to a situation in which the visioning happened but was not implemented because, in many cases, it violated state law (ie. high residential densities, commercial districts in rural areas) fomenting a climate of mistrust that we struggle with today in Jefferson County. While we are past the visioning stage, the participants in our public process have dwindled. At this point they generally represent the far ends of the spectrum -- what can generally be described as property rights advocates or those commonly referred to as "no-growthers." The moderate citizen has lost interest -- not to mention the fact that GMA just makes land use planning more complicated and, in that way, less accessible to the public (ironically). UGAs, LAMIRDs, built environment, rural land versus urban lands in the context of GMA, low-density sprawl -- you need to know and understand this type of vocabulary and that can be intimidating. Those individuals who do have the time to participate in our county are generally retired or have a strong vested interest in site-specific zoning results. On the bright side, this will change
with time . . . .

I've included a quote from a Western Washington Hearings Board case (Panesko v. Lewis County #00-2-0031c) that I feel characterizes a lot of the current GMA planning that occurs in rural jurisdictions -- sorry to be so morbid . . .

"What is perhaps more important is how the heretofore non-participating citizens of Lewis County view the County's GMA exercise. How could they see it as anything but a game between County officials and their supporters and Petitioners and their supporters? What motivation does the other 90% (or whatever number) of the people in Lewis County have to participate in and help establish how growth will be managed over the next 20 years, when everything that has been done is perceived as a battle of wills between the opposing parties in these cases? Ultimately it matters little how these issues come before us, but it must certainly matter a great deal to those unwilling to participate in the GMA process that is so dominated by maneuverings and rhetoric from the existing protagonists."

Teresa Swan
City of Kirkland
In the past, we had done the "standard" city-wide public meeting and workshop for drafting or amending the City's vision and framework goals for the Comprehensive Plan. We would see the same people as we see at City Council and Planning Commission meetings - the typical resident activist or someone upset about one issue. For example, for the 1995 Comp Plan city-wide meeting on the City's vision, we had about 150 people and then at a follow-up workshop we had about 60 people (same who had attended the earlier meeting).

This year we tried a different approach. We just completed our Community Conversations - Kirkland 2022 and had 1027 people participate from all sectors of the community as well as people who work in Kirkland, but do not reside. Of the 927, 381 young people participated. Attached is a list of the groups and individuals who participated.

The purpose was to ask people what was their preferred future for Kirkland 2022. We told them that we will be using their responses to update the existing city vision statement and 13 framework goals

We made a video about Kirkland 20 years ago, Kirkland now and Kirkland 20 years from now (2022) to help them think about the scale of change over 20 years. The video was aired in 3 ways: at various get-togethers and meetings, on the City's web site and on the City's cable channel (shown 5 times a day with an introduction and the 3 questions following the video)over a two month period. City staff contact people and worked with them to set up these conversations. The video lead to 3 questions for folks to respond to. See the attached questions.

The various groups had someone host the conversation (city staff did not attend), make a prepared introduction, show the video, take notes on the responses to our 3 questions and then sent us the responses. This made it more of a grass roots approach so that the groups felt that they had more at stake with their responses. City staff provided the hosts with a packet of materials and a format to follow. City Planning staff (me) hled the conversations for the schools.

We summarized the responses and presented the responses on Nov 12th at a city-wide event (75 people showed up). We compared their responses to the questions with the existing vision and goals and then asked the audience what they think should be the key elements for the Vision of 2022.

We now will start looking at amendments to the vision and goals as part of our 10 year update of the Comp Plan.

J. Lynch
City of Bellingham
Good questions.

Summary
Citizen participation is only useful if you can actually get the
disenfranchised involved. Which is extremely hard. After they're
involved, then you have to get them educated, so they know as much as the
traffic expert or the crime-prevention expert or the planner - or you have
to help them trust these experts. And, after you're done, then you have to
help them present their plan to the decision makers. Only then, will you
get a good comprehensive plan which actually addresses the real needs of
the community.

You're getting at the paradox of all 'visioning' and citizen
participation programs. The core question is: "What do you have against
our representative form of government? We elect representatives, they make
decisions. It's simple."

Citizen participation grew out of the great liberation movement in the
middle of the last century. People weren't being listened to. Especially
the poor, minorities, and the disenfranchised (prostitutes, gays,
transsexuals, non-Christian religions, etc.) Honest planners tried to
bring them into the process.

How well has it worked? Spottily. If an area is occupied by a group that
doesn't/can't vote, or the ratio of voter-to-elected is so high that (for
example) a 1,000-person neighborhood disappears in a 250,000 person City
Council district, then citizen particip. is your only option.

However, much of the time, it's the people who can afford to come to
multiple meetings who run the process. They're generally wealthier and
better educated than the majority of folks in their neighborhood.

They're also motivated, which means they're either civic-minded (treat
these folks as the gems they are), have a gripe, or are in the industry
(real estate agents, attorneys, architects, etc.). Not the ideal
cross-section that you need to get a feel for the community. In fact, a
skewed sample - maybe even a counterproductive sample.
If you can't control the process, then there is no way to guarantee that
more than only the wealthy and the motivated get a voice.

So, you have to control it. Which takes a lot of guts, and a lot more
political acumen, and a saint's worth of compassion and empathy.

Roger Wagoner
Berryman & Henigar
In my experience as a consultant and participant in visioning, I would say that usually there has been quite broad participation at the outset. In communities where structured processes (surveys, workshops, visual preference exercises) occurred, there were generally good turnouts and participation. This tended to drop off as the "word-smithing" went on (and on) or if the sponsor was not able to maintain the funding levels necessary to keep up the activity.

Amy Tarce
City of Redmond
I can only respond to this from my experience in Chicago. I don't know how
helpful it will be for the students, though. I worked as a planning
consultant for the City of Chicago for 5 years. The projects I worked on
included commercial corridor revitalization plans, Transit-Oriented
Development plans, neighborhood redevelopment plans, HUD HOPE VI
revitalization plans for public housing developments, parks redevelopment
and needs assessments for the MetroChicago YMCA and the City of Chicago
Empowerment Zone program. The active participants varied depending on the
project.

For the neighborhood plans, the active participants are the interested
residents. Most neighborhoods in Chicago (there are 77) have very strong
community development corporations (CDCs), and/or a community policing
organization. These entities serve as liaisons between the people in the
neighborhood and the City government agencies. They do the legwork in
getting the word out about community meetings. The extent to which people in
a neighborhood know what's going on varies from neighborhood to
neighborhood. In some cases, the community leaders (of churches, major
service providers, public school, chamber of commerce) are the only ones who
show up. In other instances, literrally hundreds of residents (sometimes
with their kids) show up. The City of Chicago Planning Department also has
project managers and designated planners for the various sub-areas of the
City. They also get the word out if the neighborhood does not have a strong
group. However, they are not as effective as the community leaders.

For the Empowerment Zone needs assessment, the participants were not in one
room together. They were service providers in the areas of economic
development, housing, health and human services, cultural development, and
youth-related services. Since the funding involved is to be targetted to
fighting poverty, it was our job to prioritize which programs should be
funded based on their past performance and successes. The visioning was
nontraditional since we discovered a lot of interesting and unique programs
that we thought were worthy of consideration. I think in the back of our
minds (that is, the City of Chicago, and the consultants), our major concern
was finding programs that will enable very low-income people to avail of
welfare-to-work programs.

For the YMCA needs assessment and the TOD project, we even had kids involved
since they were one of the primary users.

It was the planning consultants' responsibility to educate the participants
on the visioning process. Depending on the size of the group, the process
may be different. Sometimes we use focus group discussion, sometimes a
charrette format, other times a big group discussion. It is very hard to
tell whether the participants truly represent the whole community.

Visioning is vital in the neighborhood redevelopment plans since it is the
document that the community can show to the City of Chicago to get funding
for projects that they want to undertake. Oftentimes, the visioning is
followed by an implementation plan which we, the consultants, draft and the
stakeholders adopt. The visioning is important for the community because it
is a testament that they can work together, that they are unified in how
they want their community to improve, and that its voice will truly be heard
by the government.

Gary Lee
City of Redmond
The original "vision" for Redmond's Downtown was changed from a
"suburban, campus office park, model" to a traditional urban mixed-use
downtown, with high density residential housing, and ground floor
commercial/retail on appropriate streets. The downtown neighborhood was a
separate, highly defined, neighborhood. With the revision, the Comprehensive
Plan was amended by providing comprehensive (mini-comprehensive plan) for
the City Center neighborhood, with its own separate elements. Additionally,
some general goals and policies for the City were also revised to update the
City Center Neighborhood's role for the city. The comprehensive plan
provided the policy foundation for revising the development regulations and
design guidelines to effectuate the goals for the updated downtown.

Judith Stoloff
Snohomish County
We are just updating the comp plan now, and not updating the vision.

Heather McCartney
City of Mukilteo
There have only been a few changes to policies over the last 7 + yrs. These include adding economic development policies, a policy to retain 10% of the land area in open space and revisions to account for the endangered species act and updated shoreline policies.

Anonymous
We have not yet been through a review; that'll start next year.
However, I'd be surprised if the vision changes significantly. Lacking
a great deal of funding I'm not certain how much additional visioning
will occur. One thing that made it possible initially was the
availability of state funding.

Randy Kline
Jefferson County
As I mentioned above, the original "vision" contained in our community plans was, for the most part, inconsistent with state law. In the view of the citizen, we asked them to carry out the visioning exercise and then promptly threw out all the hard work they had done -- but we were just complying with the law. The lesson -- in the GMA universe a planner has the responsibility to gently remind those participating in the visioning process that GMA provides parameters that need to be taken into account. So, in unincorporated rural areas, indicate the options that exist under GMA and use that as the basis for planning.

Teresa Swan
City of Kirkland
We will be making the changes next year to reflect the responses from our Community Conversation questions.

J. Lynch
City of Bellingham
Of course the original "vision" of the community was changed! The
people that make the real decisions changed it.

What's the alternative? There is no oversight body who looks at plans and
says 'this idea is good for this neighborhood but bad for the City, so
we're not going to do it"? Why have a representative government if you
don't give legitimacy to the decision-making process?

Also, is it possible that a traffic expert might know more than neighbors
along a street, on how to slow traffic? That a crime-prevention specialist
might know more about how to deter crime, than an apartment complex owner?
That a planner might know more about encouraging 'community' than an
anti-development NIMBY?

Neighbors are no more imbued with wisdom than are planners. We all need
checks and balances.

I'm not saying that any City Council hasn't made mistakes. They all have,
they all do, they all will. I'm saying that - These are the mistakes we
make _as_a_people_. The only way you learn is to make mistakes. And,
maybe it isn't as much of a mistake as you think it is. Maybe that darn
City Council might actually know what they're doing!

Roger Wagoner
Berryman & Henigar
This is a mixed bag. Generally, however, most communities do not seem terribly interested in revisiting the vision statements to any great extent. Since we're only about 5-7 years out from the initial visioning, this is understandable. Jurisdictions that have had really significant growth do have many new residents, and to the extent that those people have become part of the community social structure, they may be driving more elaborate efforts. Duvall is an example of this. I would expect that the next round of updates (2012-15) will be much more involved in addressing their visions.

Gary Lee
City of Redmond
It's my opinion that you should work hard to include all of the affected
population groups and record their input. So, if there is an event that you
have planned and you did not get good turn out for some groups, you should
plan more events until they are included. For those who are under
represented, their perspective and needs should also be taken into account
if possible and relevant (as if they had voiced there needs and desires).
Balances is needed in addressing voiced (and unvoiced) concerns. Those who
speak the loudest are not always right, nor do they speak for the majority.
They are just loud.

Judith Stoloff
Snohomish County
Some groups will always be underrepresented in the
process, e.g. children, teens, elderly, perhaps minorities, immigrants,
tenants, non-resident small business owners, etc., etc.. How do you
adjust long-term community goals to take account of their interests?
We have a fairly comprehensive list of agencies compiled during the
United Way community assessment, which I took part in. I am not involved in
the community process. Kerstin Krippner in our office is your best contact.

Heather McCartney
City of Mukilteo
Plan and project noticing includes both tenant and property owners, we also work with the Chamber on Comp Plan and code amendments since they represent small businesses in the community. The Chamber has a Land Use Committee that reviews and addresses related issues.

Anonymous
Some groups will always be underrepresented in the
process, e.g. children, teens, elderly, perhaps minorities, immigrants,
tenants, non-resident small business owners, etc., etc.. How do you
adjust long-term community goals to take account of their interests?

Often I feel like I'm taking a shot in the dark! Using immigrants as an
example, we have a significant SE Asian population (principally Korean)
here. Their culture doesn't lend itself to public involvement, and
there's very little I can do to influence that. I try to gather
information as I deal with individuals, then take that back to the
policy level as is appropriate and as I'm able. We bring children/teen
issues to the table primarily through the school district and social
services organizations. Some underrepresented groups, such as homeless
and the overabundance of mental patients in our community, probably fall
through the cracks.

I hate the term "educate the public" because it implies the public's
somehow stupid, but unfortunately, I often find myself in that role.
This relates to my earlier comments on visioning. If people don't feel
vested in the outcome or see how it relates to them, they won't
participate.

Teresa Swan
City of Kirkland
We did have a wide range of people participate in our Community Conversations. They were from all of the sectors that you mentioned above. You may call me for more information at 425-828-1263 or contact me by email.

J. Lynch
City of Bellingham
How do you adjust long-term community goals to take account of
under-represented interests?

That's what our form of government is supposed to do - Falteringly,
staggeringly, and inefficiently. But oddly enough, in the long run, more
and more successfully. For instance, we've almost eliminated slavery,
poll-taxes, mandatory incarceration of the mentally ill, child labor, and
animal cruelty. We've reduced air and water pollution. Most of us in this
country do not go to bed hungry or homeless.

These were all terrible burdens on our 'under-represented interests'. It
was courageous people coming forward time after time - plus - a war or
two - plus - courageous law makers, who stomped these horrors into the
mud. You have to respect that - True change takes time.

But then again, why be a planner if you don't know this already? A bit at
a time, nibble at the problem, understand the problem so you're not
nibbling on the wrong bit, do your part... Sound familiar?

Understand the problem by empathizing with folks who are still
under-represented. Above all, it is the job of a planner to be empathic,
and to support those folks in the community who are empathic.

We must hear the people who have been made mute.

Roger Wagoner
Berryman & Henigar
This may be too much of blanket statement. In affluent communities, irrespective of race, age, or other social dynamics, underrepresentation may not occur, or at least not as much. But this is still a real concern for planners. And there are no easy answers. In some jurisdictions, the comprehensive plans include human service elements, and these can be used to address the delivery of services to the disadvantaged. In other areas, social service planning is on a completely separate track, frequently done incrementally and disjointedly by independent non-profits who have limited connection to the local government. This is a problem that someone should address.

Amy Tarce
City of Redmond
I don't think that you can account for the "underrepresented" unless you
talk to them. However, there's a way to reach children without talking to
them directly. For the YMCA needs assessment, we talked to the after-school
service providers in the market area. We talked to the parents and the local
church that sponsors youth activities in the area. On a positive note, the
elderly and non-resident small business owners were always represented in
the "visioning" activities I've been involved in. Immigrants are the
toughest ones because unless you truly understand their culture, you will
not be able to meet their needs. However, immigrants tend to be resourceful
and adaptive. They'll make do with whatever is available. In Chicago,
immigrants usually start out living in the neighborhoods of their ethnic
origin (Greektown, Indian Town, Chinatown, Vietnamese town, etc.). In these
neighborhoods, they build their support networks and become informed about
survival skills in a new country. These neighborhoods have their own
liaisons to the City of Chicago who represent the needs of the immigrant
population.

I think the key is to identify your future users and stakeholders before
holding the visioning meeting and figuring out how you will get their input.
Don't stick with traditional visioning processes if they are not going to
get you the information you need. Be creative. That's the fun part of being
a planner.

Using the Chicago model for immigrant populations, if you have a significant
number concentrated in a subgeographical area, you may be able to find an
entity within the ethnic subcommunity that will be willing to participate in
the visioning process.