2011 New Woogies

Holy Crap Everyone

So I think I may be deciding to actually contribute to this blog, and so many times that it will make all of you crazy, unless I can figure out a way to blow your minds each and every time I post. I  am sorry if I abandoned all of you mercilessly, but now that sounds absurd and pitiful. Let's just say there was a mobius-strip like technical difficulty. 

In better news, I have a new laptop now, instead of my four year old POS that 'brought me down' all semester so far. I did have an exquisite Macbook Pro, but had to sell it in the spring. It feels good to be up to date, available, and opinionated so seamlessly,  even if it is Windows. 

I just wanted to chime in and say hello, but will post with relevant information very soon. Also, who has scheduled planning meetings set up, if any, for the memo assignment? I would like to join, or research and get one lined up. 

Reflection from class 12/7

One of the things that stood out to me in this class was the discussion of "networks" as a way for understanding collaborative planning, or network planning as it could be called.  One of the things Bruce said that struck me was that "by evaluating the form of a network, it's possible to make predictions about it."  The example of Northern Italy (horizontal organization) and Southern Italy (vertical organization) was very interesting.  I am intrigued to understand what predictions could be made:  resilience, adaptability, equality, and efficiency were some that popped into my head.

The whole trajectory of this class has made me seriously question the capability of existing institutions as we know them to plan effectively for the future.  Plagued by indifference or irrelevance, many public sector planning departments seem like feedback loops for the status quo.  How can the graduates of this class and this program expect to accomplish meaningful change in fossilized institutions?  Certainly not all cities are like this, but places like Boulder already have an abundance of progessively minded planners.

I think that change will have to be more comprehensive.  Progressively minded politicians, businesspeople, and citizens will all have to be included in the solution, and that may have to wait for the turnover that will always take time.

12-7 Reflection (Last Class)

The final class took us back through the semester exploring the things that we learned and also, some advice for the future. One of the things I found interesting was the question “can we use collaborative techniques to promote social change?” This is an interesting question to which I hope the answer is  "yes". And I hope to experience this in my career as a planner.

An example was also given of Network planning, specifically how the U.S. Fire Learning Network incorporated these techniques. Although there were tensions in this process, it is still a valid one to consider. The professor went on to tell us how Planning is a powerful tool. And we should decide where we fit in and where we see ourselves fitting into the bigger picture. 

In blog groups we talked about how we can implement the theories learned in this class. If we don’t apply them right away will we forget them or be too cynical to use them by the time we are in a position to do so?  We didn’t find a clear answer, but I really hope we can implement the theories learned in this class as we grow in our career as planners.  

Lastly we looked at the course ‘at a glance’. And basically talked about “what should planners do?” One of the things that stuck with me was this idea that people’s trust in the government’s ability to solve issues has diminished. Planners should do more to gain people’s trust back again. We should be political activists, there not only to promote ideas, but help people believe in them again. 

 

The final reflection.

I believe the best way to ensure that a student will become a good planner is to select students that are already active in the community. This may not be true, but I do think that perspective is a good way to approach community involvement. One of the most under utilized tools are young adults in communities. If young adults grow into a system where they are participants and their voices valued the chances of them staying involved are much higher. So maybe the best way to ensure that we have good planning participation is to involve those who are not currently active.

The End.

This class really gave me a good overview into what sorts of issues I should expect to encounter in planning, but internal, in wondering what sort of planner I should choose to be, and external, in the way in which I will interact with the communities with which I work. I think the abstract nature of the class made it easier to decide that some ideologies or perspectives of planning are best, I wonder how many of us will be able to "stick to our guns" once we are employed and actually working on real projects. It's one thing to say that you support collaboration, sustainability, and any number of ideas, but it's quite another to choose collaboration (or something similar) when faced with losing considerable sums of money due to the long time it may take to collaborate. Hopefully, this class has given us all an arsenal of tools to draw out at the right moments, and holster when unneeded.

PS. Sorry for all of the gun metaphors. 

Participation?

The planning meeting I attended did surprise me. Not one community member was in attendance. The only members of the public there were students from our class and a lady who was there to get permission to raise chickens in her back yard. Not specifically mentioned in the agenda, the planning commission was moving forward with an ordinance that would require relatively high standards for energy efficiency in the City of Golden.

The "Low Density Residential Green Menu" is part of a larger program called Golden Vision. The Green Menu is what has resulted from focus groups and surveys that finished in 2010. The Green Menu is a community wide green initiative. The initiative has a point system that would give points for specific changes to energy efficiency. The points given were decided by the planners. However, the entire initiative was pushing forward the idea that through the surveys and conducted that the city planners have a good idea of what the city wants. 

I think the commission is much more attuned to the community than I would expect from planning commissions around the US. However, by one of the planners own admission, there were still many people left out of the process and there is a high probability that many people do not even understand what is going to happen. In accordance with Booher's ideas, this commission is passing a plan that is extreme on the side of collective interests. Many community members are sacrificing their own rights to choose how energy efficient they would like their home to be and will now be forced into the community wide standards. 

Golden Planning Meeting

What surprised me most of the planning meeting was the moments of humor and informality. I found that quite appealing because it created an atmosphere which encouraged the sharing of ideas without feeling intimidated. The tone of speech used by planning commissioners and resident was formal and cooperative. Everyone seemed to be on the same page culturally and was using very similar language. I was pleased to see that the professionals approached the issue with sympathy and engaged in the discussion in a positive manner. It was interesting for us, the students, so see the process of a permit being approved. We struggled, however, not to laugh at times when comments were made in a very formal manner referring to chickens. We felt that it was a humorous topic by its very nature.

Another part of the meeting which was a pleasant surprise was how engaged the committee was in making sure that the resident would make the most of the resources available in Golden to small animal owners. One of the members of the Committee, a self-proclaimed “chicken-enthusiast” advised her to become a member of Golden’s Extension service, which is a service that provides advice for small-animal owners and was established in Denver agriculture. The committee also advised her to incorporate buried wire in her design. Seeing this process, and how everyone behaved was a great learning experience.

Reflection

A couple of things surprised me about the planning meeting I attended. First, the fact that, excluding our small group of students, the only attendee was a citizen requesting a special use permit. Another surprise was the formality with with the meeting was carried out, especially considering the small attendance. The meeting followed rules of order (for example, motions needed to be made, seconded, and voted upon) even though the Commissioners were clearly familiar with each other, and gave hints of informality throughout the meeting in the form of facial expressions and small jokes.

This second surprise correlates well with Innes and Booher's criticisms of the public process, that most of the rules are just that: rules whose letter is followed, but the spirit of the rule is forgotten in accordance with meeting the standard (Innes and Booher talk about leaders reading magazines during comment procedures). Additionally, the article mentions that the public is only interested in things that have a direct effect upon their lives, as in this case, the only attendee was applying for a special use permit. 

As far as Feinstein's "just city" goes, it seems like the idea is mostly to take a little bit of as many philosophies as possible and somehow get them to form a cohesive structure. The just city incorporates the lower, middle, and upper classes into participation, some New Urbanist design ideals, consultation of social groups and third party decision-makers, etc. Considering this hodge-podge of an ideal, it seems clear that the recommendations set forth by Innes and Booher fit in, at least somewhere. To me, the just city appears to be one that recognizes that the same solution will not solve every problem, and knows the tools necessary to apply to each situation, whether it be full public participation or the occasional quick government decision.

G.S.C.Os or Collaborative Administrative Processes

Planning meetings and public participation in the United States are equitable to  Catholic Mass. 

Those who attend expect a certain level of interaction, pace and agenda. Booher, Innes and Fainstein fancy themselves as a Martin Luther figure nailing participatory changes to the door of the local government building.  

A government based in republic ideology is not necessarily well equipped to handle a collaborative participation process. Electing leaders to make educated, thought out decisions for the public is the point of our government.   Collaborative process, such as the Occupy Wall Street Movement are accordingly “..an open, participatory and horizontally organized process through which we are building the capacity to constitute ourselves in public as autonomous collective forces within and against the constant crises of our times” (Economist, Oct 2011).

The authors along with OWS Movement would like to see consensus decision-making or a democracy without government.  “The defining aspect of Occupy Wall Street, its emphasis on direct action and leaderless, consensus-based decision-making, is most clearly embodied by its General Assembly, in which participants in the protest make group decisions both large and small, like adopting principles of solidarity and deciding how best to stay warm at night.” (Economist, Oct 2011)

This is greatly evident in Fainstein’s article when she states that, “Democratic rule can deprive minorities of their livelihood, freedom, or self-expression.”  She also states that communitarians have a “darker side” in that “community has ever been one of the key sites of social control and surveillance boarding on overt social repression”. Faintein’s “Just City” and Innes collaborative process see themselves as the great answer to all past generation’s philosophy upon government and interaction.  Their ideal of consensus-based, leaderless participation, laughs in the face of the United States republic system.  Their desire of public participation goes beyond the realms of our current governmental system. Their desire to have everyone to come to a consensus on every issue would be pain stacking and would be a drain upon our society, economy and environment. Coming to a consensus on when, how, with what materials, and who should fix the pothole on Sixth and Main borders on ludicrous.  

Public participation is needed  in our society, and the public is given many avenues to  participate, because people are not involved as much as the authors believe they should be, should not result in the removal of the current governmental system. American’s do not have the time, interest or attention spans to live in a country where every plan, budget, rule or law is derived from a censuses-based, leaderless participatory system. People like predictability and routine that is why people still go to Catholic Mass and planning meetings.  They know what is going to happen, they know their role, this gives them comfort and reliability.

Collaborative consensus development might be a great idea for some avenues of solutions, but I do not see it creating a more effective or efficient local government administrative process.

Occupy Wall Street

The Apocalypse

Every generation has an apocolyptic prediction. And, every generation believes it will occur within their lifetime.

One thought I had after Wednesday's class was that people hardly ever quit their bad habits just because they know their chances of death increase by continuing. They SOMETIMES only quit after they have had a brush with death. Only after they can draw a direct connection with their actions and have an understanding of the full consequences. If you touch a hot pan as a child you learn to avoid touching it the next time. But, if people are not motivated to change because they are unable to draw a direct connection between their actions and the consequences, then how can we expect apocalytic predictions, which are as dated as the oldest civilization, to motivate change. We are numb to such predictions.

Instead we, as planners should take on the responsibility. Undeveloped countries are making strides to become more like the US, and therefore, competeing to create a larger share of the pollution. The headlining article of the Economist for December 3rd, 2011, claims, "Over the past decade six of the world's ten fastest-growing countries were African. In eight of the past ten years, Africa has grown faster than East Asia, including Japan." As the wealth spreads and more and more of the 7 billion people on Earth become producers and consumers who will ensure that resources are protected and that the greater population is living efficiently to preserve future generations? The governments. Specifically, Planners.

11-30 Reflection

Today in class we talked about collaborative resilience. We learned that it is about telling a story within the systems we are embedded in. it also allows flexibility for communities reacting to unfortunate events; by allowing people a better understanding of 1) what is the crisis 2) what is their place in the recovery process 3) what is the range of action—and to what extent does ideology restrain that range.

We talked bout how resilience can be perceived as vulnerability. But the point is to understand the world and re-shape our collective knowledge; by fundamentally changing the knowledge of the people involved in the process.

Collaborative resilience is not a scientific approach whereby a predictable model is  created to engineer our way out of problems. This process by its very nature creates a scenario where the outcome cannot be anticipated; because there are choices being made. People are applying their values to decisions and understanding what they want their world to be; understanding the conditions on the world and the emerging challenges.