Lengthy post alert - topics to be addressed at this Saturday’s Neighborhood Planning Forum

This is a copy of one of the four files I received in preparation of Saturday’s Neighborhood Planning Forum meeting at the UW. This one summarizes the topics to be discussed.

NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING FORUM: TOPIC BACKGROUNDER

There are inherent challenges to neighborhood planning, but the approaches to overcoming these challenges can be transformed into opportunities. During today’s deliberation we want to explore these challenges and opportunities, and discover which ones might apply to neighborhood planning in Seattle.

Challenge 1: The City/Neighborhood Partnership

Throughout the neighborhood planning process, the largest challenge facing a city is how power and decision-making authority are distributed, and the working partnership between city government and citizens.

In a city-directed process, the city government can provide technical expertise to evaluate the feasibility of recommendations, relay recommendations to district-wide and regional authorities that require their collaboration, and will commit to implementing the results. However, city-directed planning is often more limited to the measures government is responsible for, and some evidence shows that top-down planning processes do not always build on the work and momentum from previously planning initiatives.

A neighborhood-directed process is likely to produce more varied results, and to include recommendations that would be implemented not just by government but also by residents, businesses, non-profits or others. There is also some evidence that shows neighborhood-directed processes result in more buy-in and ownership of results, which can leverage valuable resources for plan implementation. However, neighborhood-directed planning processes do not always include necessary city staff, which can produce plans with recommendations that are too vague for effective implementation.

Challenge 2: City-wide vs. Neighborhood Goals

Some citywide goals are legally mandated, such as population and growth management targets written into a city’s comprehensive plan. How can neighborhoods absorb growth to meet these targets while still retaining their character and identity? This question is difficult to answer and may have more than one correct solution.

Conflicts often arise when rezoning or new housing and economic development efforts are proposed. In Minneapolis, Minn., neighborhood planning processes have taken a more transparent planning process that relies on communication upfront by city staff about what the city-wide goals are. This communication of goals in the beginning of the process allows neighborhoods to see how their recommendations can affect the city planning as a whole.

Another approach is encouraging neighborhoods to collaborate on neighborhood plans by organizing a city into sectors. Portland, Ore., currently uses this model to address the relationship among neighborhood plans, and important issues crossing neighborhood boundaries (such as transportation corridors and park facilities.)

Challenge 3: Representation of all Stakeholders

How can we make sure a neighborhood plan represents all of the residents who live there? What public engagement strategy should be used to reach underrepresented groups in neighborhood planning? These are questions very few cities have even begun addressing.

The traditional citizen involvement model relies on city staff and neighborhood residents to conduct outreach to underrepresented groups. The benefits of this model is it allows everyone to come to one place at one time, teaches new participants the civic skills necessary to participate, and is efficient in terms of time and money. However, some critics of this model argue that the obstacles to participation are great because of such things as language barriers, childcare, work schedules, and expertise, leaving only those who can afford it to participate.

An alternative model of citizen involvement used by some cities is engaging underrepresented populations such as immigrants, minorities, senior citizens, youth, and renters by going to where they meet and talking with them on their terms. In Portland, the city recently outsourced their outreach through a small grants program to a variety of nonprofit organizations with established relationships among underrepresented groups in the city. These nonprofits had a deeper level of understanding about how these citizens organize and communicate with each other, which led to a much richer dialogue. However, this “go to them” model of civic involvement is expensive and often time consuming. It requires additional funding and volunteer and/or staff time in building the relationships necessary to have a meaningful engagement.

Challenge 4: Managing Expectations

During the neighborhood planning process, residents’ create a vision for the future of their neighborhoods which can raise a lot of expectations about what neighborhood plans can provide. When political, financial, legal, and environmental restrictions come into play, conflict and disappointment can arise.

How can residents’ expectations be managed to avoid wish lists that are impossible to implement without stifling the creative and hopeful vision of the community?

One approach is having a hands-on approach in the planning process by city staff with expertise in the restrictions that may apply. This more hands-on approach allows city staff to give feedback to participants throughout the planning process. However, critics argue that this approach does not allow for plans that may not be feasible now, but could be in the future; an example could be plans that call for large capital projects and then a voter tax levy is later passed to fund them.

Another approach is explaining where neighborhood plans relate to other city planning being done by various departments. For example, cities conduct planning exercises because of federal and state regulations, funding requirements, or simply because it’s the way the city does business. Some of these of these planning exercises can and do take precedence over neighborhood plans. Clarifying where the neighborhood plan fits into this scheme can help avoid confusion and to establish realistic expectations.

Challenge 5: Consistency of Plans

Another tension occurring in the neighborhood planning process is between the neighborhood’s desire to have a plan that is tailored to their unique environment, and the city’s desire to have plans with some consistency of content for more efficient and systematic implementation.

Seattle chose to let neighborhoods determine the direction of their plans and the issues they would address. This led to a great sense of ownership of the plans by residents at the end of the process, but in some cases is also led to increased conflict between stakeholders who disagreed on what the plan should address. This open approach also led to variation in the content of the plans, which continues to be an obstacle for city planners today.

Other cities have had mandatory elements that every plan should address. In Minneapolis, housing and economic development must be address. In Austin, Texas, land use, zoning, and economic development must be addressed. These mandatory elements have made it easier for cities to incorporate neighborhood plans into their comprehensive plans and city department activities, increasing the rate of plan implementation. Critics of neighborhood plans with a set outline argue the required elements do not consider the issues that may be the highest priority such as pubic safety or education.

Challenge 6: Implementation

How should city departments use neighborhood plans? The answer to this question will determine how neighborhood plans are implemented.

Neighborhood plans have historically been used only as advisory documents for many cities departments when deciding what projects to prioritize. This allows departments the flexibility to adapt to changes in their political, environmental, and financial pressures when choosing projects. However, leaving implementation of plans up to individual departments leads to inconsistency in implementation and even the complete dismissal of neighborhood plans.

Proponents of making neighborhood plans binding either by ordinance or tying them to departments’ budgets argue that the plans will be disregarded unless the city is accountable for implementing them. Critics of this approach fear mandating city departments to implement the plans may lead to projects that are not in alignment with city-wide goals.