> The rationale given for the proposed split is that the P&Z has been so
> busy "zoning" -- dealing with request s for zone changes, subdivisions,
> etc. -- that it hasn't had time to plan. By dividing into 2 groups, they
> could better keep up with the workload brought on by the rapid growth in
> the county in the last 5 years.
I have concerns about the split. The presumption is that if
individuals have more time to devote to planning, that the
plans would be better. This is a highly questionable presumption.
I believe the quality of plans is more a function of the people
and process used, rather than the time involved. A
scary thought to me is to have the same people on the current
P&Z having *more time* to devote to planning. I have
little confidence that this P&Z would have drafted a better
Comp Plan with more time. Their arguments in defense of the
current (and very poor) Comp Plan was not that they did not
have enough time, but rather that they made good choices.
The proposed "split" presumes a causal relationship between
time and quality planning. I think we can all think of many
cases where a good deal of time and effort did not produce a
very good plan.
The bottom line: if you want better plans, get 1) more people
and 2) more knowledgable people involved. This can happen
with or without the change in P&Z structure.
-- Greg Brown gregb@uidaho.edu http://www.uidaho.edu/~gregb Computer Services Moscow, ID 83843 University of Idaho (208) 885-2126