HPC agenda 032801 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

09 THE ALLIANCE REVIEW to most elected officials (and many planners these days) . This lished. graphic approach to planning-as -policy depends heavily on imagery for its success , and the technique is thus more apt to A third kind of currently fashionable planning is called be employed by individuals trained in architecture or land- strategic planning. It looks at proposed projects or propos- scape architecture (who nonetheless , when it suits their pur- als and examines them in depth and from every angle . The poses , do not hesitate to also describe themselves as "plan- thrust of strategic planning is to insure that every possible ners " ) . alternative to a proposed course of action is considered. It is sometimes cynically referred to as " gumming the problem to Second, there is project planning ; This is a process that death. " Strategic planning tends to be favored by officials comes into4 play when some unit of government (federal , state who , for whatever reasons (typically political or related to job or local) proposes to do or build something — to construct a security) , avoid a hard decision regarding a given course of road or highway, put up a public building, dredge a channel , action and use " mediation " and "negotiation " to help find a etc . Project planning usually involves something to be carried strategy. This makes life easier for planners , since they may out or built immediately or in the near future , which gives a safely remain in the middle ground as negotiators , but the sense of urgency to both proponents and opponents , who can process often results in an unfortunate compromise solution then choose up sides , to an immediate . problem that isn ' t advocated by any con- stituent group. The project planning approach builds on the consumer move- ment of the 1960s and 70s . Like the skull- and-crossbones Strategic planning is not usually very comprehensive in terms label on a household product describing the contents and any of subject matter or geography. It tends to result in Small harmful consequences of eating them, project planning is a Area Plans , or SAPs . Too often the SAP is prepared as a disclosure process — a sort of let-it- all-hang out statement by rationalization for changing a pre-existing , official land-use the government administrators proposing the project, describ- or other comprehensive plan component that prohibits what a ing or disclosing any potentially bad consequences to the developer wishes to do . It is often a stretch to call SAPs and environment or the neighbors . Once the potentially harmful local site plan review processes planning, since as often as id on the table, so to speak, not they are an after-the-fact rationalization to permit some impacts of a given project are la - the "will of the people " can be energized in public meetings , thing that has already been decided, administrative proceedings , or in court. Typically, these are called environmental impact statements . Small area plans can , of course, be useful in taking the land use component of the local comprehensive plan to the next This early warning or disclosure process makes it possible for level of detail. But there are two serious disadvantages to this opponents to slow down or stop a project in different ways approach. First, this kind of detailed planning — more akin to and at several levels of intervention. The most straightfor- design than planning — should happen only after a land-use ward and obvious tactic is simple political pressure. A some- plan is officially adopted and in place . Too often SAPs are not what more ritualized approach of this kind would be like much more than a tortured rationale for spot zoning , which, Section 106 of the 1966 Preservation Act, requiring only the when approved, seeks to provide an excuse to tear the review and comment of experts , perhaps coupled with bind- approved land use plan apart or ignore it altogether. The sec- ing mitigation measures . An even tougher project planning and disadvantage is that small area plans are not usually approach would be like that embodied in Section 4(f) of the thought of as having much to do with historic preservation — 1966 Department of Transportation Act, which for all practi- unless , of course, the proposal at hand involves the tearing cal purposes amounts to an absolute prohibition on the use of down of an old building or neighborhood. certain resource lands for highways , once intentions are announced. Notching the level of pressure up a bit, a next step A small area plan can be a wonderful thing for a historic would be to delay the project by court action on procedural oneighborhood or a conservation district in providing a design grounds , or challenging the adequacy of disclosure . At heart, vision — guidelines , goals and objectives for public and pri- however, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Little vate projects - as well as a direction for public and private NEPAs of the states , and Section 106 of the National Historic investment in special areas. Historic area SAPs are not born Preservation Act are all grounded on a disclosure process of often enough with this kind of thinking in mind and are moti- one kind or another. vated for the reasons noted above. Sometimes this approach is called MAD planning , an A fourth approach to planning is sometimes called policy acronym for "Maximum Administrative Delay " or "Tie the planning . This approach carries a halo , is essentially verbal, bad guys up in red tape as long as possible 1 " The application and goes along at the level of " a chicken in every pot" with- of this kind of planning to preservation is by now well estab- out worrying too much about details . But because it 2