Let's Get (Reluctantly) Political

I am probably the least political person I know. While we were waiting for the Bush administration to wrap up I tried to ignore the accusatory headlines, the celebrity finger pointing/Bush bashing that was more fashion than politically motivated for a lot of the participants, and the general state of dissatisfaction that ran rampant. I always say, and this is just me talkin, but unless you think you can do better and are willing to put your money where your mouth is, it's best to keep such thoughts to yourself.

I applaud our new elected leader's courageous decision to want to fix this sorry state of affairs, but that doesn't mean that I'm so filled with political inspiration that I'm going to run for office too.

However, politics are intrinsically connected with planning. In a perfect world, urban planners would construct and design urban, suburban, and rural utopias that would spring forth from the ground using only sustainable, earth-friendly materials with everyone agreeing that whatever changes implemented are exactly what the location needs, money would flow freely, and politicians would provide ardent and unfailing support. I imagine that such world also rain gum drops and have organic unicorns as the preferred mode of transit as well.

However, in the real world, planners must rely on politicians to champion their projects and obtain city funding when applicable and align their projects with politicians' own agendas. This point was brought up in Alexander Garvin's work, the American City: What Works, What Doesn't (New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Lisbon, London, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan, Ne Delhi, San Juan, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney, Toronoto: McGraw-Hill, (c) 2002) Mr. Garvin talks about "a new approach to planning," which "explicitly deals with both public action and the probable private market reaction." [emphasis author's own] (Garvin, 8)

Mr. Garvin goes on to say,
"Such change-oriented planning requires general acceptance of the idea that while planners are in the change business, others will actually effect the changes: civic leaders, interest groups, community organizations, property owners, developers, bankers, lawyers, architects, engineers, elected and appointed public officials- the list is endless.

Being entirely dependent on these other players, planners must focus on increasing the chances that everybody else's agenda will be successful. They may choose to do so by targeting public investment in infrastructure and community facilities, or by shaping the regulatory system, or by introducing incentives that will encourage market activity. But whatever they select, their role must be to initiate and shepherd often-controversial expenditures and legislation. More important, the public will be able to hold them accountable by evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the private market reaction to their programs." (Garvin, 8)

I realized that I am a certifiable dork when I noticed that Mr. Garvin's American City is the size and weight of the average college textbook, yet I found the material fascinating. This isn't a slam against Mr. Garvin, his writing style is informative and engaging. But that doesn't change the fact that I read textbooks for fun.

I recall talking about the strange bedfellow relationship between planners and politicians during my summer internship with the city of Visalia and discussing this subject with the incredibly generous and experienced Andy Chamberlain, one of the senior planners.

Andy told me, and this cobbled from my hastily scratched notes, nothing was recorded and he was not on record, that "Planning is ultimately about politics, it shouldn't be, but it is." He went on to say that politics means both political politics and people's personal/business agendas. "Planning needs to focus on the long-term good for everybody, but how to achieve this with everyone coming in with diametrically different goals and having everyone walk away with a sense that compromise was reached as far as possible." (paraphrase)

Andy knows what he's talking about as he has diffused many a potentially tense, or even volatile site plan review meeting with a firm but empathetic manner. Even when the developers or architects would come in with a my-way-or-the-highway attitude, regardless of the city's set mandates, Andy made sure that everyone had a chance to air their grievances, but that did not also mean surrender on the city's part.

Andy not only is an excellent planner, but he also has an unintentional Socratic method built into his conversations, sparking me to think broader and farther about a topic. For example, I stopped by his office to talk about my research on the e-waste zoning amendment project on which I was working and during our discussion he wondered out loud about other underutilized applications such as solar panels on top of buildings which set Thanks again Andy, for everything.