Re: Comprehensive Planning

[curley@CYPHER.TURBONET.COM]

In reply to Bill London's posting of Friday, Nov. 20:
Yes, I think we need a  county-wide plan that incorporates the 
needs and current plans of the cities.  Yes, I think Vision 2020 
should address the issue and that we should involve as many citizens 
as we can.  And yes, we need to concern ourselves with 
our remaining farm and timber land, as well as with our water, air, 
and other natural resources.  Population growth is  an important 
component of each of those considerations.  
I doubt we can speak for the community or reflect community opinion 
because it is probably non-existent in many quarters, less than 
comprehensive where it does exist, and perhaps self-centered 
in others.  However, I think we can have a significant hand in 
bringing the community together on these issues and helping to 
formulate an informed opinion of a core constituency.

In addition to the planning criteria outlined by Ken Medlin, I 
suggest we add an "Education and Communication" component to provide 
consistent information to the community at large.  One of the things 
I find most unfortunate about many "steering" or "planning" 
committees is that they do great work, but wind up miles ahead of the 
understanding of the general public, and consequently their 
willingness to go along with the result--as in voting against 
implementation, filing expensive lawsuits that delay implementation 
until the plan is no longer viable, and raising arguments that could 
have been appropriately deflected if they had been known earlier.  
Typically the planners have spent all their time researching and 
planning and are often uncomfortable becoming the "promoters" of 
their own work.  Incorporating that function--and citizens adept at 
its performance-- into the task force at the very beginning might 
help develop the consensus more promptly and less painfully.   

As to the suggested "options in regard to [our] stated interests," I 
think it will take such a major effort to develop a consensus and an 
intelligent plan, I don't think functioning only "as a major citizen 
interest group" makes nearly as much sense as forming "coalitions 
with other organizations to influence development policies and 
investments that affect land-use," etc. and providing community 
education in line with the suggestion mentioned above.  If we're 
going to take the time and trouble with this weighty issue, we should 
do everything we can to see that the good efforts of many people are 
as fruitful as they can be.  

Although it seems so far down the road as to be premature to 
contemplate, perhaps we should be mindful that developing a plan--and 
the consensus to support it--is only the beginning.  A continuing 
effort will be needed to implement the plan, evaluate changes, and 
communicate with V2020 and the community at large.  Perhaps the 
"steering committee" suggested by Ken Medlin would move into this 
function once a plan is developed and adopted.

The allusion to Whitman County is one that should not be overlooked 
in the structure of the task force(s).  While we can't speak for our 
neighbors, we should certainly speak to them, and where possible 
coordinate our efforts. 

Prior postings:
 From:          "bill london" <bill_london@HOTMAIL.COM>
To:            vision2020@moscow.com, ljstauber@moscow.com, dev-plan@moscow.com
Subject:       Re: Comprehensive Planning
Date:          Sat, 21 Nov 1998 18:37:33 PST

Perhaps the core issue of Ken Medlin's posting is not the hugeness of 
the task ahead if we want to have a true popular (in the sense of coming 
from the people and having that support) comprehensive plan in this 
region.
For me the big issue now is: what is Vision 2020?
Is Vision 2020 prepared to accept any kind or role in facilitating such 
a comprehensive plan?
I have been thinking lately of this list, and the range of opinions 
expressed, as a microcosm of the local community.  If that is true, 
perhaps we could legitimately speak for the community, as in reflect a 
community opinion.  And if our collective view is that a comprehensive 
plan is vital to us controlling our future, then we should act on that, 
and work to support/create this planning process.
Anyway, I would like to hear more discussion.  Is there support there 
for this concept of Vision 2020 as a more activist organization?
BL 


>From vision2020-request@moscow.com Sat Nov 21 14:27:00 1998
>Received: (from slist@localhost) by mail-gw.fsr.net (8.8.7/8.7.3) id 
OAA02145; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 14:35:42 -0800 (PST)
>Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 14:35:42 -0800 (PST)
>Message-Id: <199811212235.OAA02105@mail-gw.fsr.net>
>Subject: Comprehensive Planning
>Date: Sat, 21 Nov 98 15:43:11 -0700
>x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
>From: Ken Medlin <dev-plan@moscow.com>
>To: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com>,
>        "Loreca Stauber" <ljstauber@moscow.com>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Resent-Message-ID: <"CgIrx1.0.RX.w0qLs"@mail-gw>
>Resent-From: vision2020@moscow.com
>X-Mailing-List: <vision2020@moscow.com> archive/latest/1954
>X-Loop: vision2020@moscow.com
>Precedence: list
>Resent-Sender: vision2020-request@moscow.com
>
>Bill London's note certainly raises the right questions about the 
future 
>physical and social landscapes of this area which, in terms of its 
>contiguity with eastern Whitman Co., ought also to formulate positions 
>both within its own political jurisdictions and in collaboration with 
the 
>Pullman-Colfax region, so it would seem. But leaving that variable 
aside 
>for the moment, we should ask if it's possible to address a 
>"comprehensive land-use plan" without addressing a priori the social 
and 
>economic constituents that in fact shape land-use configurations?  I 
>think there should be some discussion about this relationship, for 
>without its consideration, the ways "we want to have our landscape" 
>develop may be unattainable without influencing those constituents, and 
>public policies will probably reflect only certain development 
interests. 
>Such outcomes in fact clutter the American landscape, from impoverished 
>downtowns in the cities, to abandoned rural communites, both shorn of 
>economic resources to sustain human life. Recovery, if it ever comes, 
>does so at great financial and social costs.
>     As of possible interest to this group, allow me to suggest some 
>criteria for governing what I would call the "validity" of a 
>comprehensive planning activity in which it might engage.  These points 
>could serve as ones around which to organize discussion groups and 
>information gathering work. 
>    Planning criteria should include:
>    1) Representativeness:   Community participation needs to be 
>holistic, fair, and equitable; it ought to include persons 
knowledgeable 
>about economic resources, organization and alternatives for regional 
>development
>    2)  Goal-setting:  Definition of goal-setting methods should be 
laid 
>out so that procedures can lead to clear identification of the 
character 
>and dimensions of the region's future and its quality of life. This 
>process might be seen as the ":steering mechanism" for the entire 
>enterprise.
>    3)  Information base:  A search for data bases and inventories of 
>resources readily available,  including  attitudinal profiles of the 
>community, should precede goal- and decision-making activities, in 
order 
>to nourish planning work in feasible and functional directions.
>    4)  Institutional support:  Involvement of civic, political, 
economic 
>and cultural (incl. moral-spiritual) resources should be encouraged -- 
>support which should be correlated with representativeness (item 1).
>     5)  Functionality:  We need to ask, how will planning goals and 
>objectives, welded into a strategic plan, promote functional 
>(cost-effective, productive) investments  and socially acceptable 
>development of the region's phyusical and human resources?
>     If these criterion-based propositions were to be accepted by 
Vision 
>2020, I would recommend creating a series of task forces accordingly, 
>which would lay out a planning framework and establish a time frame 
with 
>realistic targets. These groups would also collectively develop 
>evaluation instruments for measuring progress toward the larger group's 
>goals and objectives as well as those of each task force. To facilitate 
>communications in and between groups, a steering committee, both to 
>network and to coordinate, would seem highly relevant. Both the city 
and 
>county planning agencies would be likely partners, but not governors, 
in 
>the entire effort.
>
>     It seems that this kind of "organization" (a nexus of 
communication 
>activities) faces three options in regard to its stated interests:
>                          (1) Function as a major citizen interest 
group, 
>to interface with govt., business-farming,  and education -- sort of 
>"going it alone" and flexing muscles based on numbers alone
>                          (2)  Form coalitions with other organizations 
>to influence development policies and investments that affect land-use;  
>having joint meetings, representation on public bodies, etc. 
>                           (3)  Serve primarily as a community 
education 
>forum, with some public policy pronouncements disseminated on the web 
and 
>through local media
>
>    Whichever course may be chosen by this group of people, it ought to 
>be guided by criteria which will assure a high level of credibility and 
>reality-related activities.  Relying on any other level of 
participation, 
>such as "shooting from the hip" or going by the "seat of the pants" 
>(broadly conceived), will not serve much useful purpose. Hopefully  
these 
>ideas will be useful for discussion.
>                          
>
>
>------------------------
>William K. Medlin
>dev-plan associates
>930 Kenneth Street
>Moscow ID 83843
>208/892-0148
>
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Mike Curley
reply to: curley@turbonet.com
208-882-3536