Report from APA Philadelphia 2
Well, I had intended to blow off all but one of today’s sessions and walk the city, but the weather we had on Friday is now camped out on top of Philadelphia. Maybe tomorrow …
The “Politics and Planning” session this morning was pretty extraordinary. Hosted by Roger Waldon, author of Planners and Politics: Helping Communities Make Decisions, the panel addressed the need for planners of all stripes and seniorities to embrace their roles as political agents. Maxine Griffith, Executive VP and Special Advisor fo Campus Planninng at Columbia University discussed the complexities of Columbia’s efforts to build a new campus in the Manhattanville section of Harlem. David Godschalk, Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, reflected on his career in public sector and academic planning as it currently intersects his role as politician sitting on the town council. He suggested that a planners greatest assets may be patience and a commitment to consensus. Finally, Alec Bash regaled us with stories of his long career in the San Francisco planning department, framed in the generalization that “good planning is good politics.”
In his opening anecdote, Waldon suggested that planners should seek to be outcome agnostic (my term, not his). I asked the panel to reflect on this proposed role in light of the emerging threat to the public interest posed by various environmental threats (global warming chief among them). I was relieved to hear from them all that planners, indeed, should strive to address the common good in their consultations and advice, and to “manage the planning process” (Bash) when it appears to be acting contrary to that good. Griffith acknowledged that the degree to which a planner is able to so affect the agenda is related to her organizational level and the political credentials of her peers. Bash recognized the planner’s responsibility to the public interest as an ethical one that should take priority over organizational loyalty.
…
I was looking forward to the “Climate Change & Planners” session. The NRDC policy guy, Ned Farquhar, primarily emphasized the central role of energy policy in the global warming debate. At the same time, though, he suggested that intelligent land use planning can have as much impact on the problem as can solutions based on new energy technologies. In short, he argued that local planning choices are crucial to addressing global warming threats.
The remainder of this session was absorbed by an excellent review of the Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court case given by Tim Dowling from the Community Rights Council. I’m actually motivated to read the decision!
