With the kind permission of Strelka Press, we are publishing an excerpt from John M. Levy's Modern Urban Planning - in the words of the Russian translation scientific editor Alexei Novikov, “an encyclopedia of urban planning written by an urbanist and practicing urban planner who backs up almost every thesis with a striking example, first of all, his own."
Why is planning a policy?
For several reasons, planning is usually carried out in highly politicized conditions:
1. Planning often involves addressing issues that hurt people, such as the nature of the neighborhood or the quality of the school district. A planning solution that you don't like can invade your life every day if it is implemented where you live or work. Violent opposition to subsidized housing from suburbanites is largely due to fears that it will negatively impact local schools. In some cases, these worries are groundless, in others they are not, but in any case, it is easy to understand why there is an emotional outburst when it comes to something that residents believe affects the happiness and safety of their children. Resounding public opposition was the main force that ended the urban renewal program. Few executive action can generate more emotion than a program that can force a city dweller to move out of an apartment or relocate their business to, in the words of one author, "clear the way for a federal bulldozer."
2. Planning solutions are visible to the naked eye. Buildings, roads, parks, real estate - the locals see and know them. Planning errors - for example, architectural errors - are difficult to hide.
3. The planning process, like all other local government functions, takes place where you live. It is easier for a citizen to influence the actions of the local city council than to the decisions of the state legislature or Congress. Awareness of potential performance stimulates participation in planning.
4. Citizens rightly believe that they have some knowledge of planning, even if they have not officially studied it. Planning involves land use, traffic management, the nature of the community itself, and other issues familiar to local residents. Therefore, as a rule, locals do not unconditionally trust planners.
5. Planning involves making decisions with serious financial implications. Let's say Mr. X owns 100 acres of farmland on the outskirts of town. The value of land in the area is increasing and it is clear that it will soon be used more intensively. If municipal water supply and sewerage are installed along the road leading to this plot, it can be built at a density of 12 housing units per acre; thus, the cost of one acre would be, say, $ 100,000. On the other hand, if this site does not have access to public services, its use will be limited to the construction of single-family homes on one-acre plots, and the land value will be $ 10,000 per acre. This means that Mr. X wins or loses $ 9 million depending on whether the municipal integrated plan includes water and sanitation for his site. One can easily imagine similar examples where the potential value of land depends on zoning, street expansion, land development, government building, flood control measures, etc. Even those who have no real estate other than their home may feel, and rightly so, that they have significant financial interests in planning decisions. For many citizens, the only significant source of home equity is not a bank account or stocks, but the potential income from the sale of a house. Therefore, planning decisions affecting property values are essential for homeowners.
6. Planning issues can be closely related to property taxes. Real estate tax is one of the main sources of income for local governments as well as for public educational institutions. Planning decisions that affect the development of a territory also affect its tax base. They affect the property taxes that local residents have to pay, and are most likely significant amounts. In 2013, total property tax revenue in the United States was $ 488 billion, or just over $ 1,500 per capita. The level of real estate taxes has been of concern to the public for many years. This is evidenced by Ordinance 13 in California and similar laws in other states that set maximum property taxes.
Planners and authority
Basically, planners act as consultants. The planner itself does not have the authority to initiate changes in the city or district: to allocate budget funds, pass laws, conclude contracts or alienate property. Where planners have certain legal authority (for example, in relation to land-use control), this authority is granted - and, where necessary, taken away - by the appropriate legislature. Thus, the degree of influence of the planner depends on his ability to formulate his point of view, reach consensus and find allies among those who have the necessary authority.
A plan is a vision of the future. The planner influences events to the extent that he can make this vision general. In the early years of planning, as we noted in connection with the Chicago Plan, it was assumed that the planner independently develops the entire plan as a whole (with the exception of some particulars). In those years, the planner's job was to “sell” his ideas to the public and the local political establishment. Burnham and his associates have implemented this very scheme in Chicago with great success.
A more modern view is that good plans come from society itself. From this point of view, the proper role of the planner is to facilitate the planning process and provide expert judgment, rather than develop the entire plan in its entirety. There are several arguments in favor of a modern approach to planning. First, he avoids elitism. The planner has certain skills that the average citizen does not have, but that does not mean that he is smarter than others. Second, the planner (and any other person or group of people) cannot have a complete and accurate understanding of the interests of the population as a whole. No one but ourselves knows our true needs and preferences. If this is the case, the interests of citizens can only be fully represented if they are involved in the planning process at an early stage. Third, it can be argued that a plan created with significant citizen participation is more likely to come true than a plan of the same quality developed exclusively by specialists. Participation in the planning process itself informs the citizen of the details of the plan. If citizens devote their time and energy to the plan, they will be more supportive of it. Some "their plan" will turn into "our plan." However, there are also some counterarguments. I will outline them below.
Planners today see their involvement in politics very differently than they did a few decades ago. In the 1920s and 1930s, it was customary to separate the planning process from politics and be “above” politics. The planner reported exclusively to the “non-political” planning board. Over time, it became clear that isolating the planner from politics makes it less effective because decisions are made in the realm of politics. In addition, it became clear that the term “non-political” was misleading. For example, the inclusion of a group of influential citizens in a public council is essentially a political decision. A group of less powerful citizens is likely to give planners a very different set of instructions. In fact, no one is outside politics, because everyone has their own interests and values, and this is the essence of politics.
The concept that the planning process should be separated from politics was born during the movement for the reform of municipal government in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During that period, the executive power in many cities passed from former structures like New York's Tammany Hall to civil servants, and in some places to professional managers who were not part of any political party. In some cities, administrative reform has led to a new governance structure: the elected mayor plays a largely ceremonial role, while the real responsibility and authority rests with the city manager who is hired by the legislature. Reform advocates were of the opinion that politics is a dirty and often corrupt activity, and the less it affects planning, the better. The modern view of those events is that the reform movement was to some extent a victory of the wealthy middle class over structures that represented the interests of the working class and newly arrived immigrants. Simply put, the reform was not so much an exception to politics as a redistribution of political power.
Separation of powers
The environment in which the planner operates is characterized by a combination of political, economic, and legal power. This applies to any planner in any country, but the United States in particular. The US Constitution was created to limit the power of government - not only to protect the nation as a whole from tyranny, but also to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority." Obviously, the system was not created to facilitate swift and decisive government action. Political power in the United States is divided on many levels. First, it is distributed among various levels of the executive branch. Local and state governments are far more powerful in their dealings with the national government than in most other democracies in the Western world, such as France or Britain. As a rule, local and state governments receive much more of their own revenues than similar governments in other countries. Financial solvency and political autonomy are intertwined. In the United States, executive autonomy at the state and local levels rests on the Constitution, which, as its authors intended, sharply limits the powers of the federal government: opposition to concentration of power is a long-standing American political tradition.
Secondly, there is the so-called separation of the branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial. This division goes back to the founding of our state and the intention of the authors of the Constitution to restrain the supreme power, structuring it so that the influence of each branch of government is balanced by the influence of the other two. Planning is the responsibility of the government and is clearly a function of the executive branch. However, funding is required to bring almost all plans to life. Setting the level of taxes and appropriating funds are functions of the legislature. The executive and legislative powers are, of course, limited to the judiciary. Federal level judges are nominated by the executive branch and approved by legislators. At the state and local levels, the mechanism for forming the judiciary is structured differently: in some cases, judges are appointed according to the federal model, in others they are elected.
In addition to the division of power into executive, legislative and judicial, local power can be divided administratively. An urban agglomeration, which is a single economic and social entity, can be divided into tens or even hundreds of jurisdictions. In parallel with the administrative districts, there may be various districts, the leadership of which has certain executive powers and responsibilities. For example, school districts generally have the power to levy taxes and, in some cases, alienate property. In many states, District Councilors are directly elected by the residents of the District, which in turn elects the District Superintendent. Thus, the administrative structure governing schools is parallel to the structure of local government and is not part of it. However, both structures levy taxes on the same population, have the authority to make land use decisions, issue debt and make capital investments. Other authorities, for example, those responsible for water supply, sewerage or transport, can be arranged in a similar way.
The United States has a strong tradition of respect for private property rights. A legal conflict between the state and property owners is inevitable. The boundaries of these rights are ultimately determined by the judiciary. In addition, as we have already noted, the courts often act as guardians of private rights and, as such, may require certain actions from other branches of government. Perhaps the most famous example is the judicial-mandated fight against racial segregation in schools, but other examples can be cited. For example, the court's interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 1992 clearly defines the responsibilities of the municipal government in this area and the amount of funds that must be allocated to support people with disabilities.
Power in the non-governmental sphere is also very widely distributed. As voters, citizens are the source of power. But individuals can also form influence groups. And any planner working in a city where a large proportion of residential buildings are privately owned quickly runs into them. In many cities, trade unions have a lot of power. Another example is environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club or local conservation societies. Large property owners - both undeveloped land and buildings - also wield a certain amount of power, as do local employers. Land use planning, investment and construction activities are very closely intertwined. Therefore, employees in the construction industry - both managers and ordinary workers - are often the main players in decision-making and resolving controversial planning issues.
In addition to the fact that citizens participate in the planning process individually or as representatives of specific groups, planners themselves organize a certain citizen participation; partly to engage the public in planning, but also because it is often required by law. Most federal subsidies are for the construction of highways, water and sanitation systems, local economic development projects, and the like. allocated only if the requirement for organized citizen participation has been fulfilled in advance. Such requirements are not an empty formality. In fact, they are being implemented without external pressure, because planners and municipal officials are well aware that if these requirements are ignored, the project could be closed for procedural reasons stipulated in legislation that punishes non-compliance with federal requirements for citizen participation.
Many planners end up favorably with the idea of citizen participation in the planning process, but it can be frustrating. A planner who has a common vision for the city's development may be discouraged by the participation of citizens, who are mainly focused on what is happening in their home area and are not very interested in the “big picture”. The experience of many planners shows that citizens are eager to participate in discussions about issues around their home, but it is usually very difficult to involve them in discussions on a larger scale, such as regional planning. In a way, the vision of local residents obeys the rule of direct perspective in painting: objects located closer to the viewer look much larger than objects of the same size in the distance. Therefore, as a planner with an active stake in civic engagement, you can become desperate if your professional judgments, perhaps born from hours of studying a particular situation, are diverted because they contradict the views of citizens (or politicians). Of course, an economist, a managerial analyst, or any other expert experiences similar feelings when giving advice in a given political situation.
This is a fundamental fact of political life: it is easier to mobilize the public to protest than to express support. Therefore, the situation often develops in such a way that there are groups that are ready to resist the process, but there is not a single group that can contribute to it. Public opposition has put an end to many of the planners' initiatives. Any citizen has the opportunity to express his or her opinion, and in this sense, citizen participation is democratic. However, it does not always reflect public opinion as much as it seems at first glance. Civic movements and influence groups are spontaneous and may reflect the views of a very small proportion of the population, but local governments often succumb to pressure from a noisy, tight-knit minority. When wealthy homeowners trample on the ideas of a young idealistic planner about building affordable housing in public hearings, he is likely to become wiser and more pessimistic and will henceforth have mixed feelings about the benefits of so-called popular rule.
The person most influential in shaping the New York metropolitan area was undoubtedly Robert Moses. His career began at the dawn of the 20th century, long before the era of citizen participation in the planning process. He was a brilliant and power-hungry master of political manipulation, confident in his own rightness. In his youth, he was also an idealist. He was responsible for most of the responsibility for building highways, building bridges, creating parks, building various municipal facilities, and destroyed many residential buildings and small companies in order to clear the way for his projects. He had little interest in what the public wanted and was more guided by his own ideas about what was needed. He evoked incredible delight and burning hatred. It is not easy to assess its impact on the whole of New York and its surroundings, because it is difficult to even imagine what they could be if Moses were not there. All that can be said with some degree of certainty - in that case, they would become completely different.
Paris in the 19th century had its own Robert Moses named Baron Haussmann. He, too, was power-hungry and unshakably firm; and its possibilities were also great. Walk through the tourist center of Paris and it's hard to deny that it is beautifully designed and you can spend your free time there. But, of course, if you were one of the thousands of poor Parisians thrown out into the streets because Haussmann swept entire neighborhoods off the face of the earth to bring his ideas to life, you would think of this man very differently. Be that as it may, he did not care about your opinion and, probably, your well-being.
But regardless of the opinion of planners about citizen participation (the author's experience shows that most planners are ambivalent about it), this issue cannot be neglected. Long gone are the days when citizens sighed: "It is impossible to fight with the mayor's office!" - and resigned themselves to the inevitable. Citizens' wealth and education levels have increased over the decades, they have less reverence for the authorities and are probably more skeptical of the establishment. They do not intend to stand aside and sit back. The times of Moses and Osman are long gone.
The planner rarely meets with general consensus on any issue. There is often an opportunity to reach a compromise and find a position that suits the majority, but very rarely all stakeholders are ready to agree on their views on a public problem. When proposals are made in general terms, they often get more approval than when they are outlined in detail. For example, we all endorse a high level of environmental protection, but when it comes to closing a particular plant, it quickly turns out that environmental well-being for some brings unemployment for others. Planning, like politics, is largely about the art of compromise.
