|
EDWARD J. KAISER AND DAVID R GODSCHALK
<br />established during the first half of this century. By
<br />1950, a sturdy trunk concept had developed. Since
<br />then, new roots and branches have appeared —land
<br />classification plans, verbal policy plans, and develop-
<br />ment management plans. Meanwhile development of
<br />the main trunk of the tree —the land use design —has
<br />continued. Fortunately, the basic gene pool has been
<br />able to combine with new genes in order to survive
<br />as a more complex organism —the 1990s design -policy-
<br />management hybrid plan. The present family tree of
<br />planning reflects both its heredity and its envi-
<br />ronment.
<br />The next ;generation of physical development
<br />Plans also should mature and adapt without abandon-
<br />ing their heritage. We expect that by the year 2000;
<br />plans will be more participatory,' more eletctronically
<br />based, and concerned with increasingly complex is-
<br />sues. An increase in participation seems certain, bol-
<br />stered by interest groups' as well as governments' use
<br />of expert systems and computer' databases. A touch
<br />broader consideration of alternative plans and scenar-
<br />ios, as well as a more flexible and responsive process of
<br />plan amendment, will become possible. These changes
<br />will call upon planners to use new skills of consensus
<br />building and conflict management, as more groups ar-
<br />ticulate their positions on planning matters, and gov-
<br />ernment plans and interest group plans compete, each
<br />backed by experts (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987).
<br />With the advent of the "information highway,"
<br />plans are more likely to be drafted, communicated,
<br />and debated through electronic networks and virtual
<br />reality images. The appearance of plans on CD ROM
<br />and cable networks will allow more popular access and
<br />input, and better understanding of plans' three -
<br />dimensional consequences. It will be more important
<br />than ever for planners to compile information accu-
<br />rately and ensure it is fairly communicated. They will
<br />need to compile, analyze, and manage complex data-
<br />bases, as well as to translate abstract data into under -
<br />standable impacts and images.
<br />Plans will continue to be affected by dominant is-
<br />sues of the times: aging infrastructure and limited
<br />public capital, central city decline and suburban
<br />growth, ethnic and racial diversity, economic and envi-
<br />ronmental sustainability, global competition and
<br />interdependence, and land use /transportation /air
<br />quality spillovers. Many of these are unresolved issues
<br />from the last thirty years,_ now grown more complex
<br />and interrelated. Some are addressed by new programs
<br />like the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
<br />Act (ISTEA) and HUD's Empowerment Zones and En=
<br />terprise Communities. To cope with others, planners
<br />must develop new concepts and create new tech-
<br />niques.
<br />382 APA JOURNAL • SUMMER 1995
<br />4µ.
<br />One of the most troubling new issues is an at-
<br />tempt by conservative politicians (see the Private Prop-
<br />erty Protection Act of 1995 passed by the U.S. House
<br />of Representatives) and "wise use" (Jacobs 1995)
<br />groups to reverse the precedence of the public interest
<br />over individual private property rights. These groups
<br />challenge the use of federal, state, and local regula-
<br />tions to implement land use plans and protect envi-
<br />ronmental resources when the result is any reduction
<br />in "the economic value of affected private property.
<br />Should their challenge succeed and become widely
<br />adopted in federal and state law, growth management
<br />plans based on regulations could become toothless.
<br />Serious thinking by land use lawyers and planners
<br />would be urgently needed to create workable new im-
<br />plementation techniques, setting in motion yet an-
<br />other.planning evolution.
<br />We are optimistic, however, about the future of
<br />land use planning. Like democracy, it is not a perfect
<br />institution but works better than its alternatives. Be-
<br />cause land use planning has adapted effectively to this
<br />century's turbulence and become stronger in the pro-
<br />cess, we believe that the twenty -first century will see
<br />it continuing as a mainstay of strategies to manage
<br />community change.
<br />AUTHORS' NOTE
<br />We appreciate the constructive comments on earlier drafts
<br />of this article by a number of colleagues, especially Alan
<br />Black, Linda Dalton, and Kern Lowery, and by the journal's
<br />reviewers and editors. Matthew Goebel conducted the sur-
<br />vey of comprehensive plans in growth- managing states.
<br />NOTES
<br />1. Each critic puts forth his or her own alternative to com-
<br />prehensive physical planning. Some make radical rec-
<br />ommendations, such as doing away with the mapped
<br />land -use general plan (Perloff 1980, 233 -4) or even with
<br />long -range planning for Euclidean space based on
<br />straight and parallel lines and angles of plane triangles
<br />(Friedmann 1993, 482). However, the principles embod-
<br />ied in their solutions tend to turn up in land use plan-
<br />ning practice over time. Thus, we find that some
<br />comprehensive plans, such as Sanibel's, include land use
<br />regulations as recommended by Perin (1967, 337). Per -
<br />lofFs (1980) call for policy planning has been heeded by-
<br />nearly all contemporary plans, though not to the exclu-
<br />sion of land use maps. Actually, no one could have fore-
<br />seen in 1980 the extent to which GIS has tied policy
<br />analysis to land use mapping, suitability studies, sketch
<br />planning, and scenario development (Harris and Batty
<br />1993). Friedmann (1993) calls for planning that is
<br />normative, innovative, political, aw sactive, and based
<br />on social learning. Arguably, all of these qualities may
<br />be found in leading edge examples of contemporary
<br />
|