Planning: general 🌇 The role of government in planning

[cmdrico7812]

I am doing some theoretical research into the role government should play in planning. I would like some input from all you planners out there pertaining to your thoughts on the role government should play. You can talk about the role at any level you wish (federal, state, or local governments). In planning we often deal with opposition to governmental intervention yet most of the planning theory in existance discusses a definite role for the government in the planning process. So, who should plan? What should they be planning for? How should they plan? For example, do you still see a role for the comprehensive plan?

I appreciate any input you provide. Thank you!

Eric

 

[wahday]

One thought I have been knocking around for a while is how involved state governments should be in planning issues. Traditionally, few have been willing to take a strong stand and many of those that did, have since receded from asserting authority.

One of the major development issues facing many metropolitan areas has to do with jusridictional boundaries. I just completed a study of Albuquerque whose greater metro area ranges over 6 counties and many towns and cities. In trying to guide, curtail or direct new growth, it becomes very difiicult to coordinate these interests. We have a regional planning entity, but all they can do is make recommendations. The result is that some areas adopt, say, "smart growth" principles, while others do not and sprawl spurts out to take advantage of loose restrictions. Longer commute times, increased costs to extend infrastructure, increasing spatial disparities in the way people are distributed across the landscape, etc. are some of the ensuing problems.

One reason I think the Urban Growth Boundary in Oregon has worked (current legislation that threatens it aside) is that the state required all municipalities over a certain size to establish one. This means that your city and its neighbors are all playing by the same rules.

As our population increases, as we become used to consuming more land in less efficient ways, as costs of energy increases, these jusridictional issues will become ever more pressing, I suspect. State level planning guidelines/requirements could help guide larger patterns of development.

So, why have they not done it so far?

As for master planning, I think the major challenge is the ability to draft plans quickly enough to respond to changing circumstances while still generating input and buy-in from the general public. I also think a great many plans are poorly organized, confusing to read and difficult to access. What is the role of a plan? Who uses it? I find most are written like a school paper and are not easy to access by developers, communities, and city departments who are the primary audience who use them essentially as "strategic plans."

 

[DetroitPlanner]

Govt's role is to protect the health and welfare of the jurisdiction. Some see this as a game of screw your neighbor, others see this as an opportunity to help the less fortunate.

 

[michaelskis]

I think that government is very important in planning for several reasons. First of which is the power to plan comes from enabling legislation often created by planners, but modified by elected officials. Additionally, I think that the elected officials have a better grasp on what the population wants than most planners. They do things that will get them votes and this often includes listening to what the public wants and working to make that happen, even if it is in contrast to what we as planners feel would be the best thing for the community.

Take Portland for example. It was not a government planning staff that decided that they needed an urban growth boundary, it was an very active and vocal environmental coalition that was able to influence the political leaders by directing the perception of what it would do. Now because of it, much of the growth that would have been around Portland is now on the other side of the river in Washington. Once the growth slows down, the public perception will change and the idea of Urban Growth Boundaries will be out the door.

It is the same with sprawl. I am sure that just about every planner knows of residential property within walking distance of their office. Of course there will be a few rural exceptions to this, over overall the majority of us could find a house closer to were we work. But it is often non-planning related influences such as the quality of schools and crime that make us live in a suburban area. Political leaders realize this and they react to it.

 

[DetroitPlanner]

Interesting commentary Skis, yeah the politican has to listen to folks he is a creature of it. While planners like to sit in ivory towers and complain about things.

It amazes me the number of planners that resist things like public meetings and charettes as they 'may ruin their good ideas with better ones'.

 

[jaws]

Government, as a consequence of the nature of its institutions, cannot plan. It has no concept of the value of the resources it builds or consumes. For example when the government plans the road system it results in extreme overbuilding (sprawl) and ultimately neglect and decay (traffic congestion, crumbling infrastructure).

Politicians are self-interested, self-serving individuals just like everyone else. Their first task is to convince the marginal voter to keep voting for them, and they do this with a number of promises that they either cannot or don't intend to keep. Once that position is secured they proceed to secure privileges for themselves and their associates. The possibility of losing the marginal voter is the only check on their activities.

Take Portland for example. It was not a government planning staff that decided that they needed an urban growth boundary, it was an very active and vocal environmental coalition that was able to influence the political leaders by directing the perception of what it would do.

This does not support your argument, it refutes it. The government planners were useless and it was the public that had to intervene as an association existing outside the government.

But it is often non-planning related influences such as the quality of schools and crime that make us live in a suburban area. Political leaders realize this and they react to it.

That's false. Political leaders fail to improve schooling and security in their communities. The very idea that people have to settle for the schooling and security that is provided by the least dysfunctional community exposes the incompetence of government planning at providing these goods. How did schooling and security get bad enough that people chose to live in inferior settings in order to escape the poor quality of these goods? Because the government could not plan them.

 

[michaelskis]

I am not sure if you're trying to argue or agree, but knowing your past history, I will think that you're trying to argue.

Government, as a consequence of the nature of its institutions, cannot plan. It has no concept of the value of the resources it builds or consumes. For example when the government plans the road system it results in extreme overbuilding (sprawl) and ultimately neglect and decay (traffic congestion, crumbling infrastructure).

When this happens, people get booked out of office. People associate quality of life measures, often falsely, with the local elected civic leaders. If the quality of life sucks, then they do not remain in office unless there is noticeable corruption such as in Detroit.

Politicians are self-interested, self-serving individuals just like everyone else. Their first task is to convince the marginal voter to keep voting for them, and they do this with a number of promises that they either cannot or don't intend to keep. Once that position is secured they proceed to secure privileges for themselves and their associates. The possibility of losing the marginal voter is the only check on their activities.

Ok... run against local politicians and preach about traditional planning concepts such as density increase urban growth boundaries, and limiting roads, you will never make it out of the starting gates.

This does not support your argument, it refutes it. The government planners were useless and it was the public that had to intervene as an association existing outside the government.

I don't think that you understand my comment in that case. I agree that the local planners did not do what they needed to make it happen, it was an Environmental Group that influenced the planners. But the boundary is set in place and made legal by politicians. Planners have no authority to require anything without it being included in an ordinance or law. Enabling legislation is truly responsible for us being able to do our job.

Additionally Portland was time/location specific. People where making money, development was good, the IT industry was running the show, so an urban growth boundary would not hurt them. WHEN things change and the Portland Economy shifts, public leaders are going to completely pull a 180, regardless' of what the Environmental Groups want. Too many people will see the UGB as a hindrance to development and demand that it be removed.

That's false. Political leaders fail to improve schooling and security in their communities. The very idea that people have to settle for the schooling and security that is provided by the least dysfunctional community exposes the incompetence of government planning at providing these goods. How did schooling and security get bad enough that people chose to live in inferior settings in order to escape the poor quality of these goods? Because the government could not plan them.

No, it is true. Previous place of employment had phenomenal architecture, dense urban pattern, mixed use pedestrian neighborhood, and from those elements it would seem to be a phenomenal success. Additionally, there were no big box developments but several former industrial site were turned into retail space. But guess what, the local mentality of many voters demanded that the city hold true to its former industrial base and not be so welcoming to change. They elected leaders that felt the same thing and it drove the city into the ground. Drugs, Violence, and other crime ran ramped throughout the city, drove property values into the ground and pushed people into the suburbs, even though the panning staff did everything in their power to prevent it from happening. Planners have the greatest plan ever created, but there are several factors that are out of our control.

Additionally the place that I am working for now is divided by our neighbors to the north by a street. It is a continuous urban area. Our north neighbor has all the elements in place for terrific urban planning. While the community I work for now is mostly based on sprawl... but you know what... it is what people wanted, and now we are in far better shape than our neighbor to the north. Our property values are higher, we have more commercial and economic development, and the median income here is substantially higher than in our northern neighbor. Yet most would think that it was not good planning. It is because the government here has been very proactive in getting development here, and when push comes to shove, people want the development and lower taxes instead of what many of us would think of good planning principles. Additionally, we have very low crime and phenomenal public schools. Two people in our office have moved their families into our community from the northern neighbor because of the school district and low crime rate.

 

[jaws]

I think we're confusing what is "government" and what is "planning." I define government as the control structure of government property, politicians and bureaucrats. Planning is the process of planning the future of these resources.

You claim that the urban growth boundary came from pressure outside the government, from the influence of a private citizens' group. Thus here we see that the government, the politicians and their bureaucrats, could not anticipate (plan) the needs of the community and had to be coerced into following the action of a private citizens' group.

Then you recall how your city was ruined again by the government failing to plan the future of the resources appropriately. The politicians were elected to prevent change and despite their bureaucrats making plans the actual decision of planning of the resources was under control of the politicians who elected to let the place go to ruin. Again we see that the government failed to plan. Even though planners have the greatest plan ever created this plan is worthless unless someone plans to execute the plan.

Then you confuse planning with urbanism when you explain why your sprawl city succeeded while the old city failed. While the new city was built around sprawl, it planned its other resources, education and security, better than the old city. And since it has more competitive prices it has prospered while the old city failed. The old city may have better urbanism but it failed at providing more critical goods competitively, therefore it failed at planning.

 

[michaelskis]

I think we're confusing what is "government" and what is "planning." I define government as the control structure of government property, politicians and bureaucrats. Planning is the process of planning the future of these resources.

You claim that the urban growth boundary came from pressure outside the government, from the influence of a private citizens' group. Thus here we see that the government, the politicians and their bureaucrats, could not anticipate (plan) the needs of the community and had to be coerced into following the action of a private citizens' group.

Then you recall how your city was ruined again by the government failing to plan the future of the resources appropriately. The politicians were elected to prevent change and despite their bureaucrats making plans the actual decision of planning of the resources was under control of the politicians who elected to let the place go to ruin. Again we see that the government failed to plan. Even though planners have the greatest plan ever created this plan is worthless unless someone plans to execute the plan.

Then you confuse planning with urbanism when you explain why your sprawl city succeeded while the old city failed. While the new city was built around sprawl, it planned its other resources, education and security, better than the old city. And since it has more competitive prices it has prospered while the old city failed. The old city may have better urbanism but it failed at providing more critical goods competitively, therefore it failed at planning.

Some cities have good forms of government, some do not. Ironically, some cities are doing terrifically, some are not. Some have phenomenal planners and some, including most small towns, do not.

Many people in the US like the idea of living in what they perceive as small town America but with the opportunities of the big cities.

 

[Luca]

One of the major development issues facing many metropolitan areas has to do with jusridictional boundaries. I just completed a study of Albuquerque whose greater metro area ranges over 6 counties and many towns and cities. ....

The difficulties inherent in this fragmentation of authority are evident. However, I think there is another side to it as well. Just as the fact that each State controls many aspects of legislature (including criminal law) allows for different 'competing' solutions to arise and, hopefully, lead to the best practices winning out, similarly the presence of mixed jurisdictions within one metro area could prevent a bad (or good) policy being implemented all at once. Presumably, people will then want to imitate the good policies, etc. For instance, imagine we have a metropolitan area divided into four even quarters. One sprawls like crazy. Another does not sprawl as much, etc. finally one has a growth limit. Well, in that area house prices will be higher but also more desirable, nicer, more open countryside, etc. Eventually, land-owners/developers might want to imitate the best practice and since there is one such example 'in the area', it will present a very real alternative to mindless sprawl (without having to move away form a job, say).

 

[jaws]

Some cities have good forms of government, some do not. Ironically, some cities are doing terrifically, some are not. Some have phenomenal planners and some, including most small towns, do not.

Many people in the US like the idea of living in what they perceive as small town America but with the opportunities of the big cities.

So? You just accept that "some cities are not doing terrifically" as if it were an unavoidable fact of life? Do you care at all about the people who live there? Do they not deserve a better life?

And what's the relevance of people wanting to live in small towns with big city life? It's obviously a contradiction and will obviously require a tradeoff at some point.

The difficulties inherent in this fragmentation of authority are evident. However, I think there is another side to it as well. Just as the fact that each State controls many aspects of legislature (including criminal law) allows for different 'competing' solutions to arise and, hopefully, lead to the best practices winning out, similarly the presence of mixed jurisdictions within one metro area could prevent a bad (or good) policy being implemented all at once.

That's wrong though. For all we know, the most competitive structure might be for all cities to merge into one large organization, realizing critical cost-savings thus making it capable of competing with other cities elsewhere in the world. And there is the also the nasty fact that democracies don't behave competitively.

 

[otterpop]

Planning is the process of planning the future of these resources.

"These resources" are only one part of the big picture. Planners primarily are entrusted with protecting public health safety and welfare. Additionally, we may also be entrusted with the responsibility to protect moral values (through zoning which regulates adult businesses, for example) of the community. We help people develop their property while protecting the property rights of others, so those who develop mitigate negative impacts of development.

Planning became a primarily a government function because someone has to watch the henhouse. In the past people pretty much did what they wanted and it did not work. The cry to "let the market drive development" did not work. The foxes have the interest in watching the henhouse, that is for sure. They want to eat the chickens then move on to the next henhouse. Government stepped in to keep the chickens from wanton slaughter. In that way, we protect "these resources" for present and future generations.

Time and time again government has stepped in to regulate, not because government wants to, but because there is a need.

People are more individualistic than social. Looking out for number one is the rule, not the exception. So, one of the roles of government and planning is to protect the community from the action of the individual that would be detrimental, hazardous and unhealthy. Additionally we assist the individual in achieving his goals.

Government, the private sector and the public can turn out a good result if they work together. It doesn't happen as often as it should. Too often planners spend their time, instead of planning, cleaning up messes created by people who do not know the regulations or don't care. But at the same time, the engineers, developers and builders do get good advice from planners and sometimes they see the light and turn out better product.

It certainly isn't a perfect system. But I believe in planning and I believe government's involvement in planning produces far more positive results than negative results.

 

[michaelskis]

So? You just accept that "some cities are not doing terrifically" as if it were an unavoidable fact of life? Do you care at all about the people who live there? Do they not deserve a better life?

I do care and I have encouraged people to take action and make their voices heard. I have encouraged people to step forth and take pride in their community and let others know that some actions and conditions are not acceptable. I am moving to a much larger city at the end of the summer and I will use my experiences there to help strengthen the neighborhood organization and encourage others to do the same. I will continue to work for the same municipality that I am at now, but as a citizen I can create ideas that will change the direction of a community.

And what's the relevance of people wanting to live in small towns with big city life? It's obviously a contradiction and will obviously require a tradeoff at some point.

Have you ever been to a big city in the United States? It is call suburbs. People will live in the suburbs where they have a safe low density neighborhood, a big house with a white picket fence. They sit on their back patio with their neighbors as the kids play with the dog on the weekends. On the weekdays, they hop into their SUV and commute the one hour into the city, park in a multi level garage and take the elevator up to some mid range floor. As they walk into their office, they notice their name on the door along with some middle management title. They have hopes and dreams of moving up in the corporation, having lunch at the deli around the corner, and making back home in the suburbs to see their kids baseball game. In these cases, they live both the small town life, yet have the big city corporate opportunities. It is why the suburbs are so popular... that that is regardless of planning trying to get them to move into the city.

Those are my ideas and what I do, and now Jaws, I ask you what would you do to make your world better? How do you suggest us as planners save our cities, revitalize our downtowns, strengthen our neighborhoods, and enhance the quality of life factors in our communities. Additionally, how does government and planning fit into your ideological theories?

 

[NHPlanner]

Moderator note:

For the record, this thread now has about zero relevance to the original post. Please, create new threads to discuss off-shoots and off-topic discussions, especially in the forums outside of the FAC.

I'm leaving this open for now, but try to get back to the original topic or start a new thread.

 

[jaws]

Moderator note:

For the record, this thread now has about zero relevance to the original post. Please, create new threads to discuss off-shoots and off-topic discussions, especially in the forums outside of the FAC.

I'm leaving this open for now, but try to get back to the original topic or start a new thread.

I don't understand what you consider to be off-topic. This is about the role of government in planning, isn't it? We can't avoid discussing what the government does.

 

[NHPlanner]

Moderator note:

I don't understand what you consider to be off-topic. This is about the role of government in planning, isn't it? We can't avoid discussing what the government does.

I read this:

I am doing some theoretical research into the role government should play in planning. I would like some input from all you planners out there pertaining to your thoughts on the role government should play. You can talk about the role at any level you wish (federal, state, or local governments). In planning we often deal with opposition to governmental intervention yet most of the planning theory in existance discusses a definite role for the government in the planning process. So, who should plan? What should they be planning for? How should they plan? For example, do you still see a role for the comprehensive plan?

I appreciate any input you provide. Thank you!

Eric

and I see nothing in the recent posts that adress his questions.

 

[jaws]

So I'm not accused of being off-topic again I'm addressing these questions:

In planning we often deal with opposition to governmental intervention yet most of the planning theory in existance discusses a definite role for the government in the planning process. So, who should plan? What should they be planning for? How should they plan?

Private property owners should make plans. They should be planning for every resource, land, housing, commerce, roads and infrastructure. They should plan these resources in order to maximize value. Now here's why.

"These resources" are only one part of the big picture. Planners primarily are entrusted with protecting public health safety and welfare. Additionally, we may also be entrusted with the responsibility to protect moral values (through zoning which regulates adult businesses, for example) of the community. We help people develop their property while protecting the property rights of others, so those who develop mitigate negative impacts of development.

Planning became a primarily a government function because someone has to watch the henhouse. In the past people pretty much did what they wanted and it did not work. The cry to "let the market drive development" did not work. The foxes have the interest in watching the henhouse, that is for sure. They want to eat the chickens then move on to the next henhouse. Government stepped in to keep the chickens from wanton slaughter. In that way, we protect "these resources" for present and future generations.

Time and time again government has stepped in to regulate, not because government wants to, but because there is a need.

The evidence is overwhelmingly against the need of the government to regulate, as we have seen what the destructive effects of sprawl and zoning are on land use patterns. The government only regulates as a consequence of its failure to protect people's rights. For example zoning was originally supposed to correct the problem of pollution, which only was a problem because the government did not allow people to defend their property against pollution! So we got the worst of both worlds, bad land use and pollution. A completely unnecessary and destructive system of planning was created by the government. People could have better planned their own property. The entire argument that government stops the market from "eating the chickens then moving on to the next henhouse" relies on the twisted logic that a failure to allow people to defend themselves justifies the government directly controlling every part of development.

People are more individualistic than social. Looking out for number one is the rule, not the exception. So, one of the roles of government and planning is to protect the community from the action of the individual that would be detrimental, hazardous and unhealthy. Additionally we assist the individual in achieving his goals.

If people are individualistic, by necessity so are people in government. What are the consequences of allowing individualistic people this kind of power? Every planning disaster we've seen. Sprawl, urban renewal projects, crumbling infrastructure, and so on. Individuals will protect themselves from detrimental, hazardous and unhealthy actions if the government allows it. It is hubris to deny them this right and then claim that they need bureaucratic regulation for their own good.

It certainly isn't a perfect system. But I believe in planning and I believe government's involvement in planning produces far more positive results than negative results.

I believe in planning and I believe that government's involvement has destroyed good planning and ruined the environment. How else do you explain sprawl? The history of government planning has been a net negative.

In these cases, they live both the small town life, yet have the big city corporate opportunities. It is why the suburbs are so popular... that that is regardless of planning trying to get them to move into the city.

Those are my ideas and what I do, and now Jaws, I ask you what would you do to make your world better? How do you suggest us as planners save our cities, revitalize our downtowns, strengthen our neighborhoods, and enhance the quality of life factors in our communities. Additionally, how does government and planning fit into your ideological theories?

To make the world better, to rescue the city and improve neighborhoods, to enhance quality of life, one needs the power to act. To act means to make changes in the environment, to regulate the activities and design of the streets and to invest capital. A political structure is completely useless at doing this. It limits freedom of action. It puts special interests before the general interest. That is why the cities need to be rescued in the first place, their political structure completely failed them. People fled to the suburbs as life in the city became increasingly chaotic. The politicians have absolutely no interest in improving the quality of life and competitiveness of their cities. They look out for their own interest first, just like any other human being would. That's why Detroit is a ruin and the suburbs of Detroit are well populated.

The suburbs are not popular because they offer small town life. A suburb is nothing like a small town. It is a landscape of total isolation where the impact of political incompetence is minimized. The suburbs are popular because they provided a place to escape the urban chaos. The key to getting people back in the city is making town life, which as demonstrated by Leon Krier is exactly the same whether the town has a population of 8,000 or 8,000,000, a good life once again, and we can never count on the government and the politicians for that. It was a private sector group, the New Urbanists, that brought this back into the spotlight, and then demonstrated just how much people wanted to live like this by building a few towns. If government planners really looked after the interests of the town they were in charge of, they would have all realized what they were missing and made the necessary planning changes. But they didn't. Even today more sprawl is being built by the government.

This kind of madness is only possible because of government's role in planning, and is why it must be abolished.

 

[michaelskis]

Jaws, all I can say is good luck trying to change the world from that perceptive. I personally think that you are so far in the wrong direction that I find your theory totally ridiculous and your concept of why suburbs exist to severe misunderstood. I try to see it from the other point of view and it does not seem to work because reality is it is not what the people want, and if it was, they would take action by voting that way. Most people have better things to do with their time than running a municipality.

I do however applaud your determination, and I encourage you to not only talk the talk, but to also walk the walk. Run for political office and then privatize your city. Make it happen and show all of us that you are right and we are wrong. Until that day comes or you provide some other tangible argument that has been proven in the real world, I will think continue otherwise.

 

[jaws]

Jaws, all I can say is good luck trying to change the world from that perceptive. I personally think that you are so far in the wrong direction that I find your theory totally ridiculous and your concept of why suburbs exist to severe misunderstood. I try to see it from the other point of view and it does not seem to work because reality is it is not what the people want, and if it was, they would take action by voting that way. Most people have better things to do with their time than running a municipality.

Your last statement is perfectly true. People don't care about the business of planning. They don't know how it works and they don't have the time to participate. They only get involved when their interests are directly threatened by political corruption. This means that your previous statement is completely false. People cannot vote any way they want because they do not know what the consequences of their vote is going to be on the urban planning system. No matter what it is they want, their vote will never translate into what they really want.

So that leaves us with only one method of determining what people's real wants are: market exchange. What they choose to buy is what reflects their true preference. You will say that people have chosen to buy the suburbs thus proving that is the form of urban planning that they desire, but that is not wholly true. This choice to live in the suburbs reflects tradeoffs more important than urban planning factors, the most important of which are quality of security and education. As best as we know, without a competitive production of all three goods, people choose the suburbs despite it being an inferior urban environment in order to get better security and education.

I do however applaud your determination, and I encourage you to not only talk the talk, but to also walk the walk. Run for political office and then privatize your city. Make it happen and show all of us that you are right and we are wrong. Until that day comes or you provide some other tangible argument that has been proven in the real world, I will think continue otherwise.

Again, you have completely misunderstood my position if you recommend that I run for office. The whole argument has been condemning the political process as a system of decision-making for urban planning. You can't get rid of politics from office, you have to do it from the grassroots and impose it upon the politicians. The one thing all politicians will always agree on is that people need politicians. You cannot convince them otherwise. If they believed that, they wouldn't have become politicians.

If you want examples of success in private planning, you need look no further than the small-scale developments made by the private-sector New Urbanist movement. They have been popular and financial successes while having struggled against unnacountable public planning departments. No additional empirical evidence is necessary.

 

[michaelskis]

Your last statement is perfectly true. People don't care about the business of planning. They don't know how it works and they don't have the time to participate. They only get involved when their interests are directly threatened by political corruption. This means that your previous statement is completely false. People cannot vote any way they want because they do not know what the consequences of their vote is going to be on the urban planning system. No matter what it is they want, their vote will never translate into what they really want.

So that leaves us with only one method of determining what people's real wants are: market exchange. What they choose to buy is what reflects their true preference. You will say that people have chosen to buy the suburbs thus proving that is the form of urban planning that they desire, but that is not wholly true. This choice to live in the suburbs reflects tradeoffs more important than urban planning factors, the most important of which are quality of security and education. As best as we know, without a competitive production of all three goods, people choose the suburbs despite it being an inferior urban environment in order to get better security and education.

Again, you have completely misunderstood my position if you recommend that I run for office. The whole argument has been condemning the political process as a system of decision-making for urban planning. You can't get rid of politics from office, you have to do it from the grassroots and impose it upon the politicians. The one thing all politicians will always agree on is that people need politicians. You cannot convince them otherwise. If they believed that, they wouldn't have become politicians.

If you want examples of success in private planning, you need look no further than the small-scale developments made by the private-sector New Urbanist movement. They have been popular and financial successes while having struggled against unnacountable public planning departments. No additional empirical evidence is necessary.

They get involved when they choose to get involved. Corruption can work against the public in that manner. Have you ever noticed how when there has been corruption, it is traditionally part of a legacy that spans many electoral terms. You also make it sound like all government officials and politicians are corrupt. This is just not true. People will get behind a leader who will represent their best interests and wants.

As for my challenge for you to run for public office, the general public will see your ideas as a complete contradiction to their own and you will never win. If you don’t believe me try it. The majority in North America own cars and they are not willing to give up that freedom. Even in New Urbanism developments studies have shown that they will still drive the same amount because the cost for major shopping centers is too great to locate within the development. Additionally, a very small percentage that actually live within the development work within the development. The vast majority will relocate to a New Urbanism Village will actually commute to another municipality, typically a major metropolitan city, for employment. These are often constructed to look and feel like historic neighborhoods, but are often created in some farm field in the suburbs, and traditionally not within an actual city. More so, most political leaders love the idea of New Urbanism because it is an exciting buzz word that the general public knows. They see it as a cute little village, but in reality it truly does not alter their lifestyles as much as planners would hope. So using New Urbanism as an example is like using a pogo stick for alternative transportation.

 

[Planderella]

Moderator note:

jaws and michaelskis - the both of you are skating a very thin line of relevancy to the orginal post. Your two-way conversation is dominating the thread and further diminishing its meaning. There's already one warning about this thread moving off-topic. If the replies continue to stray away from the original post, the thread will be closed.

For the record, here's the post that should discussed in this thread:

I am doing some theoretical research into the role government should play in planning. I would like some input from all you planners out there pertaining to your thoughts on the role government should play. You can talk about the role at any level you wish (federal, state, or local governments). In planning we often deal with opposition to governmental intervention yet most of the planning theory in existance discusses a definite role for the government in the planning process. So, who should plan? What should they be planning for? How should they plan? For example, do you still see a role for the comprehensive plan?

 

[jaws]

I'll just be brief in my reply so it doesn't deviate too much then.

People will get behind a leader who will represent their best interests and wants.

People get behind a leader they think represents their best interests and wants. But in reality, that leader can do absolutely anything as long as he maintains the impression that he is doing good. This is why political votes do not translate into good planning. The voters have absolutely no idea what good planning is, and will vote for whoever talks the most convincingly. Thus government cannot plan economically. A corrupt political dynasty maintains itself in power by duping the voters into thinking that they are performing well when in reality their performance is highly destructive.

As for my challenge for you to run for public office, the general public will see your ideas as a complete contradiction to their own and you will never win.

The general public is already completely disgusted with politicians. All that needs to be done is to convince them there is another way to do things.

The vast majority will relocate to a New Urbanism Village will actually commute to another municipality, typically a major metropolitan city, for employment.

No community lives in autarky. People did choose to live in the New Urban development, driving home prices above the market rate found elsewhere. That demonstrates a strong preference for this kind of environment. Now why aren't the government planners reacting to that? Because they are either unresponsive or crippled by political issues. Thus government can't plan economically.

 

[Wulf9]

There are things that only government can do. When the private sector tries to do them, society falls apart. Planning is the essential tool which should be used by government to keep government infrastructure and budgets in line.

When government is not involved in planning, private interests tend to pilllage the environment, often leaving behind land that is no longer usable or must be cleaned up at great government expense.

The key role of government in society public infrastructure (along with public safety). A government cannot provide infrastructure if it cannot direct development in a manner that allows for an efficient public budget.

Planning, even sprawl and Euclidian zoning, provides a nexus between development and infrastructure costs. Very good planning either provides compact development which makes best use of infrastructure or takes a 40-50 year look at all infrastructure costs and assesses development accordingly. (The first type, compact develoment, can reasonably be done. The second, full cost recovery, is almost never done.)

 

[jaws]

There are things that only government can do. When the private sector tries to do them, society falls apart. Planning is the essential tool which should be used by government to keep government infrastructure and budgets in line.

That's just not true. The reverse is true. The private sector is self-organizing. They make the plans that society needs the most. When government intervenes society falls apart, because government intervention disrupts the preferences of society.

When government is not involved in planning, private interests tend to pilllage the environment, often leaving behind land that is no longer usable or must be cleaned up at great government expense.

The opposite is true. The government colludes with private interests to ruin the environment at the expense of individuals. Just see this thread: Sugar industry, govt. team up to kill river

The key role of government in society public infrastructure (along with public safety). A government cannot provide infrastructure if it cannot direct development in a manner that allows for an efficient public budget.

Planning, even sprawl and Euclidian zoning, provides a nexus between development and infrastructure costs. Very good planning either provides compact development which makes best use of infrastructure or takes a 40-50 year look at all infrastructure costs and assesses development accordingly. (The first type, compact develoment, can reasonably be done. The second, full cost recovery, is almost never done.)

Government is the cause of sprawl and bad infrastructure use. Just see this thread: Private sewer and water companies and land use change. When left alone, private developers of infrastructure organize themselves to create developments that are as dense as possible, since this is what makes the most economic use of resources (creates the most profit). It's when the government intervenes that development sprawls and bad use of infrastructure follows.

We need not look further than a month worth of posts on cyburbia to see the reality of government planning.

 

[btrage]

The problem is not that governments shouldn't plan, but that they don't listen to their planners.

The problem is not governments that plan, but that the plan making takes place in a political world.

Theoretically, a libertarian government wouldn't need planners. That is, until we all started grazing our sheep in the same field.

 

[Wulf9]

Jaws, there are no complex societies where infrastructure is provided privately and/or government coordination and oversight. If it were a good model, it would probably have been done. The problem is coordination of complex systems and permanence.

I will be happy to look at a macro example of a system where private sector has done the complex coordination needed for a complex infrastructure.

By the way, the industry/government team up to kill a river reference is a problem that the private sector has done the dumping (destruction of the river) and government did not stop them. Is it your assessment that the private sector would not have polluted the river if there were no government?

 

[BKM]

By the way, the industry/government team up to kill a river reference is a problem that the private sector has done the dumping (destruction of the river) and government did not stop them. Is it your assessment that the private sector would not have polluted the river if there were no government?

But, of course not. The impoverished rural families directly affexted by a poisoned river would have been able to successfully sue the large corporations through the tort system! Nirvanna results. Or, maybe those directly impacted could have formed a private milita to gun down the plant manager responsible? Yeah, right. :-@

Purist libertarianism is just like Communism-an amusing intellectual exercise that offers no real solutions to creating a society that is livable for the vast majority of us.

 

[jaws]

The problem is not that governments shouldn't plan, but that they don't listen to their planners.

The problem is not governments that plan, but that the plan making takes place in a political world.

Theoretically, a libertarian government wouldn't need planners. That is, until we all started grazing our sheep in the same field.

Any advanced economy needs planners. The problem is, what should they be planning for? In a free market economy, the planners make plans in order to maximize value and profit. They adjust the use of property and capital to achieve this goal. We solve the problem of grazing sheep in the same field with private property. Fields are bought and sold on the market to the most efficient producer, the planner with the plan that makes the most profit.

In a government-run planning system, the planners make plans as ordered by the political officers. (I'm the decider! - George W. Bush) So there's no "problem" of governments not listening to their planners. They just don't care. It's in their nature to ignore expert advice. They are in the politics business, not the planning business. They stay in that business by keeping a public image. A private enterprise stays in business by creating value, and thus will use all the expert advice that will help it achieve that.

Jaws, there are no complex societies where infrastructure is provided privately and/or government coordination and oversight. If it were a good model, it would probably have been done. The problem is coordination of complex systems and permanence.

If this were a good argument, it would have been used to prevent this thread from being created. But since this thread exists, that must prove that the argument is invalid. Or, ermmm, :-$

For hundreds of years humanity lived under Feudalism. Then someone had the good idea to create a free market economy. The response from the conservatives, it's never been done that way before. It turned out to be the right idea nevertheless.

At the turn of the century socialists thought that "central planning" was necessary to run and coordinate a complex, advanced economy. The free market economic anarchy couldn't possibly work, they claimed. They promised immense wealth and new era to their followers. It turned out that central planners created only chaos and suffering, while the decentralized, for-profit, free market economy had it right all along.

But, of course not. The impoverished rural families directly affexted by a poisoned river would have been able to successfully sue the large corporations through the tort system! Nirvanna results. Or, maybe those directly impacted could have formed a private milita to gun down the plant manager responsible? Yeah, right. :-@

So you prefer a society where only people with money can simultaneously defend their property and corrupt the system to attack less fortunate property (externalities!), to a system where people actually have the power to defend their own rights?

If the government planners are supposed to be protecting others against pollution, and in reality it turns out that they are facilitating and increasing the pollution, where is the justification for their powers? Shouldn't we all be living under the same laws?

 

[Vlaude]

Jaws, I find it interesting that you believe govt. is at fault for some of these issues. And yes I agree with you, but not sure we are on the same page. First off, these are issues of market failure. Where the free market fails to address the problem in a short term gain. So it should be the Govt. role to step in where the market fails to protect the peoples best interest, ie. the environment. In the big picture however the govt. (the people) have the ultimate responsibility to control such failures. That is how govt. has failed, in being more pro-active. Yet I differ in the point that the govt. is the cause of these failures.

Govt. should stay small and out of every day business with exception to those that involve safety, welfare, and market failures. I tend to lean more conservative - though don't agree 100% w/ trickle down econ. and don't see the current nat'l admin. as conservative...

 

[BKM]

If the government planners are supposed to be protecting others against pollution, and in reality it turns out that they are facilitating and increasing the pollution, where is the justification for their powers? Shouldn't we all be living under the same laws?

Your argument makes no sense. There is a failure here. Admittedly. So, your solution is eliminate the evil government. Yet, the social institution that created the original problem, private property organized in an large industrial corporation, is not subject to the same eliminationist argument? The government planners can be turned out of office ifn they fail to do their job. If a large company pollutes a dirt poor rural community in the Deep South, who will really punish them other than the government?

Why not eliminate 100% the concept of the limited liability corporation? A creation that allows capital and capitalists to evade responsibility? Most libertarians ignore this problem of concentrated private power. The mutualists, who are the most interesting and skeptical to me, do not always do so, and in fact might agree with my argument in the sentence above. You, like most libertarians, focus so much on the State that you ignore the inevitable abuses of private power.

 

[jaws]

Govt. should stay small and out of every day business with exception to those that involve safety, welfare, and market failures.

"Market failures" are meaningless. Before you can build any argument in favor of government intervention on the basis of market failure, you have to answer three questions. 1 - Is there a market in place? 2 - Are consumers really not realizing their preferences? 3 - Can the government realistically do anything about it?

99% of market failure problems vanish after asking the first two questions. Often the problem of market failure is really a problem of government intervention preventing the creation of a market, or preventing legitimate defensive action. It is a problem of government failure. The rest of the time it is based on some notion of people not getting "enough" of a good, such as saying that without government subsidy we will not have enough roads for transportation. This assumes that people prefer having more roads to having some alternative good, and this kind of interpersonal value judgement is impossible to make. The only way to judge what people's preferences really are is through free exchange. What it comes down to is that market failure is just an excuse to put political agendas ahead of individual preference, with all the horrible consequences that this has always shown to result in. (Sprawl, Urban Renewal, Public Housing, Highwaymen like Robert Moses, etc.)

Your argument makes no sense. There is a failure here. Admittedly. So, your solution is eliminate the evil government. Yet, the social institution that created the original problem, private property organized in an large industrial corporation, is not subject to the same eliminationist argument?

Hold on right there. It is not private property that is responsible for pollution. That is entirely, wholly, 100% fallacious. Pollution problems in fact predate the institution of private property. Ancient civilizations destroyed themselves with deforestation (you can find ancient babylonian laws against cutting trees). A horde of barbarians doesn't need any private property to pollute and cause destruction. It can sustain itself from raiding only.

In fact you are claiming the exact opposite of reality. Private property is how we collectively defend against invasion. Without a concept of private property we have no concept of pollution or invasion at all.

The government planners can be turned out of office ifn they fail to do their job.

That is not true. The planners are accountable to politicians who are elected by large bodies of constituents, most of whom having no idea what they're voting for. If the number of victims consists of an immaterial amount of votes there will be no consequences for politicians who supported the aggression, while there may be plenty of benefits in the form of campaign contributions from the people they are colluding with. When you give someone monopoly powers this is the inevitable consequence.

If a large company pollutes a dirt poor rural community in the Deep South, who will really punish them other than the government?

Why not eliminate 100% the concept of the limited liability corporation? A creation that allows capital and capitalists to evade responsibility? Most libertarians ignore this problem of concentrated private power. The mutualists, who are the most interesting and skeptical to me, do not always do so, and in fact might agree with my argument in the sentence above. You, like most libertarians, focus so much on the State that you ignore the inevitable abuses of private power.

No corporation, no matter how large, has the level of power that is currently available to the state, especially the United States of America. There is nothing that this corporation could have done to these private owners without the collusion of the state. The retaliatory force that would have been used by the landowners and their associates would have been much greater than what the corporation could afford to expend on aggression. It is only because the corporation can hijack the monopolist of force that it can attempt such an aggression.

And one more thing. The limited liability corporation is a creature of the state as well. In a fair justice system only individuals are liable for crimes, since only individuals act and can therefore commit them. Your rant against ignoring the institution of the corporation is not only irrelevant to the problem of pollution and corruption as it can be conducted by anyone, but is also a straw man argument against a position I have not taken.

 

[BKM]

Hold on right there. It is not private property that is responsible for pollution.

But, in the very example you give it is most definitely private interests that have polluted. What's your point? Of course, all kinds of cvivilizations have polluted.

There is nothing that this corporation could have done to these private owners without the collusion of the state The retaliatory force that would have been used by the landowners and their associates would have been much greater than what the corporation could afford to expend on aggression.

Given the concentration of power in today's world economy, are you so sure? In countries where the State is very weak there is very little that indigneous communities can do against large outside coprporations. What if there are very few landowners in the area? What if they are impoverished? Are you agin assuming armed gangs of locals? Is that really a big improvement over the big bad tyrrany of THE STATE?

And one more thing. The limited liability corporation is a creature of the state as well.

as I acknowledged in my post.

 

[Wulf9]

To get back to the purpose of this thread. What should be the role of government in planning?

Government provides the infrastructure that is necessary for a complex society. Infrastructure is expensive. Planning allows City Managers and County Administrators to provide that infrastructure in an efficient way. It also avoids wholesale destruction of important resources by private interests with a short-term frame of reference. And finally, it protects property rights and values.

A city or county that does not have physical planning cannot realistically function to broadly protect the safety and well-being of its citizens. Safety comes in the form of well planned roads, clean water, waste disposal, access to police and fire services, and protection from physical and environmental harm from neighbors. All that takes planning.

 

[jaws]

For those who are interested, mises.org just today republished an essay by Murray Rothbard which describes the pollution and property theories I've been discussing with much greater thoroughness that I can hope to achieve. It's very long but worth it, as are most of Rothbard's writings.

Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution

To get back to the purpose of this thread. What should be the role of government in planning?

Government provides the infrastructure that is necessary for a complex society. Infrastructure is expensive. Planning allows City Managers and County Administrators to provide that infrastructure in an efficient way. It also avoids wholesale destruction of important resources by private interests with a short-term frame of reference. And finally, it protects property rights and values.

A city or county that does not have physical planning cannot realistically function to broadly protect the safety and well-being of its citizens. Safety comes in the form of well planned roads, clean water, waste disposal, access to police and fire services, and protection from physical and environmental harm from neighbors. All that takes planning.

You can't keep repeating that without justifying why government planning is superior to letting individuals plan and produce these goods on their own, instead of being worse as I've claimed. You're just assuming that without the government none of these goods would ever come into existence, which is completely wrong.

The idea that governments avoid the short-term interest is nonsense. There is no one more short-term focused than politicians. They live and die by the next election. Any plan that creates a short-term negative in order to produce a long-term positive will be cast aside without consideration. The only politician I can remember that thought and planned long term was Jimmy Carter, and the electorate made it clear to him what the political consequences of imposing short-term negatives on the voters are. They fed him to the dogs.

But, in the very example you give it is most definitely private interests that have polluted. What's your point? Of course, all kinds of cvivilizations have polluted.

Private interests and private property are two competely different concepts. Everybody is a private interest, whether as a private citizen, an elector, a corporate board member, a slave, a politician, a public planner, a viking raider or a bureaucrat. Everyone follows their private interest. The purpose of the law is to reconcile everyone's private interest and to make peaceful, productive cooperation possible.

Given the concentration of power in today's world economy, are you so sure? In countries where the State is very weak there is very little that indigneous communities can do against large outside coprporations.

Name me one state that has been overpowered by a corporation without the assistance of another state. Not corrupted, which is commonplace in every state, but actually physically overpowered. Name just one.

Even pathetic and dysfunctional third world microstates like Haiti can easily fight off corporations.

What if there are very few landowners in the area? What if they are impoverished? Are you agin assuming armed gangs of locals? Is that really a big improvement over the big bad tyrrany of THE STATE?

The United States was originally nothing more than an armed gang of locals that threw out an armed gang of foreigners. It is today nothing more than a very expensively armed and bureaucratized gang of locals.

Even people with very few resources can form an association with other people for mutual defense. This is what the United States were originally meant to be, but history took a different course. With today's advanced global institutions, a global insurer and reinsurer could provide protection to even the poorest landowner or association of landowner. Then you would have one big, mean corporation defending the property owners against the comparatively big, mean corporations that you dread.

 

[Wulf9]

Jaws, this thread is about the role of government in planning. If I am correct in reading your long and detailed responses, you think there should be none. I am ready to listen if, in fact, your mental model can respond to the question at hand.

Please give us an example of one or two societies that work following your rules, rather than a critique of each sentence written by everyone else.

The societies described must be modern, large scale, have complex infrastructure and complex institutions, and must have sustained themselves for at least a century. Give some detail about the institutions and infrastructure and how they are independent of government control.

If your mental model is so compelling, it must have worked somewhere.

 

[BKM]

If your mental model is so compelling, it must have worked somewhere.

But....but....but...There were three villages in Spain during 1935 that had a perfectly operating anarchist government! THAT proves it.

Identical to the "If we only truly tried Commuinsm, you will see it's paradise" mode of thinking.

 

[jaws]

Jaws, this thread is about the role of government in planning. If I am correct in reading your long and detailed responses, you think there should be none. I am ready to listen if, in fact, your mental model can respond to the question at hand.

Please give us an example of one or two societies that work following your rules, rather than a critique of each sentence written by everyone else.

The societies described must be modern, large scale, have complex infrastructure and complex institutions, and must have sustained themselves for at least a century. Give some detail about the institutions and infrastructure and how they are independent of government control.

If your mental model is so compelling, it must have worked somewhere.

The closest thing to private ownership of urban infrastructure reverts back to pre-democracy days, for example prior to the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 in Britain when democracy was imposed on all municipalities. You can clearly see the high quality of the built environment when it was privately-owned as this environment by and large remains today and is a popular attraction. There is also the fact that in any industry left to the free market the quality of the product goes up and the price goes down. It's not different for infrastructure.

To say that we need 100% empirical validation prior to attempting a reform is illogical and irrational. If this were a necessary condition to any reform, then no reform could ever take place in anything ever. It is nothing but a cop-out to avoid having to discuss the specific behaviour of the alternative systems, which you haven't done and continue to shirk. Enough misdirection. Tell us why you believe government planning is supposedly superior. If you do not understand why, then stop claiming that it is.

I can provide mountains of empirical validation indicating that government planning has been wrecking the landscape and ruining lives. Is that not good enough for an empiricist? Do I need to show 100% failure in every case before you accept that maybe the system doesn't work as intended, while showing 100% success for the alternative? That's not very objective.

 

[H]

That is, until we all started grazing our sheep in the same field.

I am not even sure if this is 'on' or 'off' topic at this point, but as implied by btrage, should there not be a discussion of the Tragedy of the Commons on this thread?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

note: maybe there already was but I read over it as I am only taking a quick break to see whats up here on the threads. I plan to catch up more next week after some deadlines are over.

 

[Wulf9]

The closest thing to private ownership of urban infrastructure reverts back to pre-democracy days, for example prior to the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 in Britain when democracy was imposed on all municipalities. You can clearly see the high quality of the built environment when it was privately-owned as this environment by and large remains today and is a popular attraction. There is also the fact that in any industry left to the free market the quality of the product goes up and the price goes down. It's not different for infrastructure.

To say that we need 100% empirical validation prior to attempting a reform is illogical and irrational. If this were a necessary condition to any reform, then no reform could ever take place in anything ever. It is nothing but a cop-out to avoid having to discuss the specific behaviour of the alternative systems, which you haven't done and continue to shirk. Enough misdirection. Tell us why you believe government planning is supposedly superior. If you do not understand why, then stop claiming that it is.

I can provide mountains of empirical validation indicating that government planning has been wrecking the landscape and ruining lives. Is that not good enough for an empiricist? Do I need to show 100% failure in every case before you accept that maybe the system doesn't work as intended, while showing 100% success for the alternative? That's not very objective.

Actually, I didn't ask you for a 100% empirical validation. I simply asked for an example of where your model has or had worked. You feel that your model is superior, and I wanted to see it in action, not just in words. You say that it worked in pre-democracy Britain, prior to 1835.

I believe your answer to the role of government is planning is that there should be no government based planning. I think you also think there should be no government based government. But you have no demonstrable alternative that is actually working on the ground. Your responses would be much more credible if your economic paradigm was actually working somewhere. It would be helpful if you respond with positive examples of governments and economies that actually work the way you think to be superior.

 

[jaws]

Your responses would be much more credible if your economic paradigm was actually working somewhere. It would be helpful if you respond with positive examples of governments and economies that actually work the way you think to be superior.

And it would be helpful on your part if you could explain why you think it is not superior instead of looking for empirical validation, since any real example can be interpreted in any possible fashion depending on your comprehension of the factors at work. Do you understand why you believe in government planning? If not, it is just a prejudice and completely invalid as an argument.

 

[Wulf9]

Do you understand why you believe in government planning? If not, it is just a prejudice and completely invalid as an argument.

I do understand why I believe in government and planning. If you read back through this thread, I have explained that role -- long term perspective, provision of infrastructure, and protection of health and saftety.

You continually allege that this is not the role government should play. I only asked for a demonstration of your ideas on the ground. I think that is fair to ask one's critic for a demonstrable example.

Anyway. This is my last response unless you have an example on the ground. Show me a functioning example of your ideal society.

 

[jaws]

I do understand why I believe in government and planning. If you read back through this thread, I have explained that role -- long term perspective, provision of infrastructure, and protection of health and saftety.

But they're all false! Governments have short term perspective. They overbuild and waste infrastructure, and they create highly unsafe environments. Why do you think there was such a flight from American cities in the late 20th century? Crime, high taxes, collapsing infrastructure. This one example refutes everything you claim.

You continually allege that this is not the role government should play. I only asked for a demonstration of your ideas on the ground. I think that is fair to ask one's critic for a demonstrable example.

Anyway. This is my last response unless you have an example on the ground. Show me a functioning example of your ideal society.

Show me a functioning example of your claims! There isn't one. Government planning has utterly wrecked the environment. All the evidence points against you, and you keep claiming that your position is sensible. I have no problem admitting that I can't provide a fully realized example of an alternative system for the simple reason that we can not ask to see a fully realized example until we actually attempt one. Neither can you use this absence of a fully realized example as an argument against attempting such a fully realized example. Your postion is ridiculous. "If it worked, it would have been done by now"? If you go back to the beggining of time, no improvement could ever take place if this position was considered to have merit, since at any point the reformists would have been told that, we're deeply sorry, but your reform would have been done before if it worked, and since you can't show us how it succeeded that must mean it can't succeed at all. We'll maintain the status quo, no matter how bad it is, because no matter how bad it is it can't be worse than the alternative that absence of evidence has shown cannot be realized.

This ridiculous position can be justly ignored and the argument can proceed. However, you show yourself to be nothing more than a hypocrite when you dismiss all the failures of the fully realized example of your own model while asking for evidence of a fully realized alternative that has never been attempted. What about the evidence that has shown how government planning will wreck people's lives? How do you excuse that?