By Klaus D. Heinert, R.L.A. - Landscape Architect
Across the nation, citizens are becoming increasingly frustrated with the planning and design process and turning to "last resort measures" such as lawsuits and recall petitions. Our Northern Michigan communities, particularly in high-growth "pressure areas" such as Acme and Elmwood Townships, have followed national trends down this slippery slope by looking to "settle " land use differences in the courts or at the ballot box. This is double if not triple jeopardy to taxpayers due to lost revenue, lost staff and decision-maker time, and the potential loss of worthy projects. Worse yet, the differences do not seem to "settle" and the cycle simply repeats itself, resulting in more and more of our available public and private development dollars being relegated to re-design, mitigation, and litigation.
What's behind this recent resurgence of costly reactionary legal measures? One reason is that we have moved too far away from good participatory design, which sets out deliberate and well-developed planning processes for public and private development. A key part of the solution is a return to the principles of Codesign, a planning model that engages all stakeholders as knowledgeable, enfranchised actors in the conception, evaluation, and refinement of a plan/design. Codesign encourages these stakeholders to interact at hands-on design charettes that foster a more context-sensitive, equitable, and politically sustainable outcome.
"Communities ask for help to enable them to participate in the design of their neighborhoods," explains Stanley King in his 1989 book Co-design. "Co-design methods develop in response to these very needs and to the conditions that arise in the process of design discussions."
Contrast this with the traditional public-input methods employed in the public sector, including referendums, hearings, and sub-committee meetings with public comment, which provide little opportunity for collaborative discussions. Traditional input methods typically allow only one person to comment at a time often allowing "... the most articulate and vociferous to dominate; and the format itself lacks procedures for visualizing creative alternatives," according to King. Frequently, this results in citizens becoming disenfranchised, knowing less and less about the project, and distrusting their community leaders, project presenters, and the entire process. The result: A seemingly non-contentious issue can become adversarial and even divide a community relatively quickly.
Another problem is that public, and especially private, development processes often sidestep or avoid identification and engagement of the real stakeholders, meaning the people that the project will affect most. These stakeholders will become the citizen leaders - either advocates or not - who will guide the community dialogue. They must be engaged early, often, and with purpose. But in order to do this, some of the traditional mechanisms for delivering information come into question. If a public or private project is introduced with too much detail and without true stakeholder input, it will likely meet with criticism and risk rejection. The perception is that the decisions have already been made. In the case of private development, such a perception "sets up" public officials for perceived lack of oversight, scrutiny, and even collusion. Developers are many times perceived as insensitive or "profiteering." In the case of public projects, elected officials appear to be "pushing pet projects" and/or displaying partisanship. At the same time, design consultants can seem predisposed only to their own ideas and neglectful of the real community needs.
Public works and private development projects default predominantly to a plan introduction followed by a public hearing process, another barrier to engaging key stakeholders. This process may be repeated at a planning commission, and again at the village/city commission level. However, these limited opportunities for public input are compounded by a schedule that allows as little as thirty days between a plan introduction and its public hearing at each respective body. Moreover, hearing notices are generally required only for landowners within 300 feet of the project, when the true stakeholders for most public and private projects come from a geographic area far greater than these dated standards. Lastly, most projects transcend political boundaries and private property boundaries. They involve the interface of public infrastructure - transportation, utilities, and their operation and maintenance, adjacent private and public property land use - both developed and natural resources, and public and private financing. This vastly broadens the citizenry "area of concern" for most projects.
Replacing the conventional design process with Codesign could dramatically increase the probability of stakeholder "buy-in" and result in usable plans and designs. Basically, the Codesign process asks a community (stakeholders) to envision what it wants. The first step is for community leaders and project developers/designers to work together to carefully assess the stakeholders needed and involve them early, often, and deliberately. Second, a customized method should be implemented to engage the broader public at a scale appropriate to the project for feedback and expansion of the ideas identified by the stakeholders. Finally, a uniquely crafted visual process should be employed to achieve the Codesign benefits noted previously. This should be done, at a minimum, through interactive participatory events and activities, such as design charettes.
The key is for communities to build Codesign into their required processes. Luckily, an opportunity exists due to the fact that many public projects in Michigan are at least partially funded by state and/or federal grants or governed by the respective statutes or local charters. Many of these grants require, as a precursor, a well-documented public process. Comprehensive Master Plans require a 90-day review period and final public input (a hearing) as a basis for Zoning Ordinance development. Recreation development and acquisition grants through the MDNR Trust Fund require public input through its prerequisite five-year Recreation Plan process. Such input efforts could easily be made more effective by using Codesign to help people to visualize what they want.
Still, these public projects are only a fraction of the design/planning and development initiatives many Northern Michigan communities are facing. The time has come to test and employ newer growth and development models for private as well as public projects. Decision makers and developers alike will surely concur that spending some resources and time early on a contentious project is far more desirable than investing huge amounts later due to lack of process.
We must not lose sight of why we are doing these things - for people, for our posterity. What we do will affect generations. Codesign employed at the appropriate time will aid in engaging the public and strengthening our planning and design efforts. Projects will be more successful for all involved, and the "Sense of Place" we all strive for will not be marked with so many dividing lines in the sand.
Klaus D. Heinert works at Gosling Czubak Engineering Sciences Inc. in Traverse City.
