In her first post on the Planetizen blog, Barbara addresses the basic question underlying all public discussions of planning and design projects:
As one of my favorite colleagues says, all anyone ever cares about at any public meeting is “where do I live and where do I park?” Public process, in short, asks people to accept changes to their homes and lives. And people generally do not like change.
We’re asking professionals who deal in public participation what they see as the issues, trends, and helpful techniques.
This response comes from Joan Isaacson, an EDAW senior associate and coordinator of the EDAW Public Participation Collaborative.
What are some issues you’re encountering in your current projects?
Joan Isaacson: Reaching people who typically are not engaged in public dialogue, which accounts for the majority of people. We typically only hear from people representing more polarized positions. I’ve been working to make use of existing community structures—community groups, service organizations, organized athletics, PTAs, umbrella organizations representing religious institutions, environmental justice, labor, etc.—for disseminating information and collecting input. These exisiting community structures already have established membership and communication channels that can be incorporated into a public participation program. Not only can we reach more people, but we also build stronger relationships and partnerships in the process. This generates trust, a key to any consensus-building process.
Planetizen links to an LA Times article, re: the heated discussion in Seattle over how to replace an aging elevated expressway through the heart of downtown. Among the choices are replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a new elevated expressway, fixing the old one, or digging a tunnel. Then there’s the “no and hell no” alternative—use surface streets and transit to move traffic. A mail advisory ballot has been sent to voters, but “no one expects the voters to have the final word on the subject.”
The LA Times:
The saga of the neglected roadway is a textbook example of what many call the “Seattle process,” or the reputed civic inclination here to seek so much public input and listen to so many sides of the an argument that nothing actually gets done.
Is this an issue of “too much” public participation? Perhaps if participation is defined as everyone taking sides and then sticking to their guns. If the whole point of public involvement is to forge a consensus and common vision, then too much participation is just code for “we missed a few steps here.” Rather than too much input, one might call it too little leadership and too little technique. This is, after all, a “multigenerational” decision. Whatever is decided about the Alaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle will have to live with it for a long, long time.
The thoughtful blogger at Carless in Seattle, who has followed the debate closely, notes that putting the issue to a vote among a very divided public may not be the best course.
Voters are not specialists in government, they can not be held accountable for their decisions, and they are rarely prepared to see viewpoints other than their own.
He praises a senator’s proposal—in another district and on another freeway issue—to bring in a mediator to “avoid a political meltdown” and “work with neighborhood groups to reach consensus on the project” (as reported in The Seattle Times).
Of the many case studies in Designing Public Consensus, one of my favorites is the story of Disney’s public participation Waterloo on the “Hallowed Ground” of the Virginia Piedmont (Chapter 6, “Opposition”). Disney proposed to build a historical theme park, called Disney’s America, on the rolling hills west of the Northern Virginia suburbs. They were shocked to find it heavy going against an interesting coalition of farmers, horse breeders, millionaires, environmentalists, nationally-renowned historians, and well-funded advocacy groups.
This was actually the third development battle to be fought in this scenic area, and the countryside has won every time. Now the fourth battle has been joined by Dominion Virginia Power, which wants to build a 500,000-volt power line (with 177-foot towers) right through the Piedmont. An amusing Washington Post article—”High Voltage, High Tension“—lays out the issues. Two lines tell the story:
Those who propose to bring “progress” to this territory reliably run into resistance of which they never dreamed.
[Dominion’s VP for electric transmission] has heard of the Disney debacle but doesn’t see any connection to the uprising over his power line.