Planning Commissioners Journal

Della Rucker talks about her article: "Why Comprehensive Plans Gather Dust"

From Planning Commissioners Journal Editor Wayne Senville:

Our Summer issue includes a short, but very interesting article by PCJ contributing writer Della Rucker on why some comprehensive plans seem to fall flat after they're adopted. As is our practice, we circulated Della's article to those who have signed up to review draft articles -- and also made it available via our Linkedin group page. We received quite a few comments, several of which raised good points that Della simply didn't have space to address in her published article.

I asked Della if she'd be willing to take the time to expand on what she wrote.

After you've read Della's remarks, continue the discussion on our Linkedin group page (scroll down under the Discussions tab till you see the title of this post).

note: if you're a Planning Commissioners Journal subscriber, feel free to also download a complimentary pdf of Della's article from our Summer issue right now. Not a subscriber, Della's article can be downloaded for a small fee.

---

Wayne Senville:

In your column in the Summer issue of the Planning Commissioners Journal you focus on a topic that I’d guess most planning commissioners have wrestled with -- how to make sure their city or town’s comprehensive plan actually gets used and is meaningful to the community.

You describe the kinds of plans that you say typically end up sitting on a shelf gathering dust -- ranging from “the Encyclopedia” plan, which you describe as “covering everything whether it matters or not,” to “the Laundry List” plan, which, as you put it, “presents such a disorganized stream of recommendations that no one knows where to start.”

You then outline some of the elements that you feel are vital if a plan is to be useful: using data to understand the most important issue the community will be facing; having meaningful public participation; setting priorities; and focusing on what’s necessary to get the plan implemented. It’s this part of your article that I’d like to explore further with you. I also want to get your reaction to some of the many comments we received on our Linkedin group page about the first draft of your column.

One of the points you make, as I noted, is the need to have “meaningful public participation.” In your column you say that we have “to do more than let the public spout” and that those participating in the planning process need to have “real-world challenges to grapple with, so that the feedback you get has meaning.” Can you flesh that out a bit?

Della Rucker:

One of the biggest sleeper challenges we are facing today is that our traditional public debate model of public involvement isn’t working well and has probably outlived its usefulness.  I think there are at least three reasons for that. 

First, today we have a lot more voices and a wider range of them. Moreover, not everyone can express themselves adequately with the traditional “stand-up-and-make a speech” approach (that is, go up to the podium, and make your comments in three minutes or less). So we get silence from a large part of the population, and often less than ennobling wisdom from the small number who do stand up to speak.

The second reason is that the issues we have to grapple with have become much more complicated because of the interdependencies and interrelationships that we live with in a modern community. You can’t deal with too much complexity, address too many nuances, and acknowledge that there may not be a perfect solution when you are at a podium for a couple of minutes and the situation has been cast as a for-or-against debate.

The third issue is that the ways in which we gain understanding and grapple with decisions are changing -- and, I would argue, need to change ASAP. K-12 educational methods (how teachers are being taught to teach) have largely discarded the lecture as a useful means of building knowledge. Instead, teachers are shifting to methods that engage the students directly in dealing with information and making sense out of it for themselves. This allows students to develop better and more meaningful solutions to the problems they are presented. The more we become used to living in a world rich with information of all types, the more we need to be able to do more than parrot back what we hear. 

What does educational methodology have to do with public participation? I’d argue, everything. What we desperately need is for our citizens to do much more than spout ill-informed NIMBYisms or buy into knee-jerk, simplistic cause-and-effect assumptions. We need to get people reasonably up-to-speed on the issues, and engage them in the search for solutions -- solutions that are realistic and address the complexities and ambiguities of real community life.

The corporate world certainly recognizes this. Companies are putting massive amounts of effort into broadening their employee base to include the widest range of people possible and then creating team environments to work on solving complex challenges. If they’re finding it necessary to use diverse team problem-solving to deal with stuff like getting shampoo into a bottle, how much more do we desperately need real, deep involvement to deal with the massive complexities that make up a community?

One thing that I always feel like I have to say as a follow-up to that idea is that it’s not simply a matter of throwing a bunch of people in a room with a problem and hoping that they’ll figure something out. That’d be foolish. Instead, we who work with communities have to borrow a page from good teachers and good business team managers; we have to carefully create a structure that:

Interview with Mary Tracy of Scenic America about Billboards

Note from PCJ Editor Wayne Senville: To round out our coverage of the impacts of billboards, we thought it important to also hear from Scenic America, an organization that focuses -- as their President notes below -- on “preserving and enhancing the visual character of our nation’s roadways, communities, and countryside.” 

Again, I encourage you to weigh in with your own views about billboards on our Linkedin group page (you need to be registered on Linkedin to access this). There have already been a wide range of interesting comments posted there. 

Our previous postings related to billboards include:

• Interview with Ed McMahon about his article, "Billboards: The Case for Control"
• Article: "Billboards: The Case for Control" (available to download)
• Response from Outdoor Advertising Association of America to McMahon article
• "So You're From Vermont" -- perspectives of PCJ Editor Wayne Senville

---

Note: the photos included below were provided by Scenic America

Wayne Senville: Mary, you’re President of an organization called Scenic America. Can you tell us a little about what Scenic America does?

Mary Tracy: Two years ago, I became the president of Scenic America, an organization that I have been deeply committed to for the past twenty years. It is the only national nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving and enhancing the visual character of our nation’s roadways, communities, and countryside. We accomplish this mission through outreach and advocacy efforts, and with the help of over twenty state and local affiliates.

We are the sole national counterweight to the multi-billion dollar outdoor advertising industry, yet we are mostly a network of volunteer organizations whose financial resources are dwarfed by the industry’s. We focus our efforts where we can be most effective: helping citizens make their voices heard. When the public is allowed to speak, they voice a preference for beauty over blight.

Wayne Senville: I want to ask you a couple of questions about billboards. First of all, aren’t most billboards used by local businesses, and aren't billboards also important in promoting tourism?

Mary Tracy: According to a fact sheet prepared by the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, the three biggest users of billboards are McDonald’s, Verizon, and AT&T. All of the top 20 billboard users are large corporations, such as Coca-Cola, Anheuser-Busch, and US Cellular, who use billboards simply as a form of “brand reinforcement” among the traveling public. We’ve spoken with many business owners who say they’d prefer not to use billboards at all; they only use them because their competition does. They’ve told us they’d prefer a level playing field where no one is using billboards.

Additionally, the inference that billboards are essential tools for tourism agencies is just plain wrong. The four states that ban billboards all have economies highly dependent on tourism. In fact, tourism spending in Vermont rose 50 percent in the two years after the state removed its last billboard. [Source: "Vermont Travel Estimates Out-of-State Visitors." 1982. Vermont Division of Research and Statistics]. Celebrating the 30th anniversary of Maine’s billboard ban, Dana Connors, president of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, said “It's become part of our quality of place.”

Wayne Senville: If the removal of billboards in these four states has proven to be a success, why haven’t more states joined in banning billboards?

Mary Tracy: Billboard companies and their various trade associations spend millions of dollars annually aggressively lobbying all levels of government, but in particular the industry works to influence regulation at the state level. Part of the reason for this is they receive the least amount of public scrutiny at this level; when called before city councils or local planning commissions to speak on sign ordinances, they are met with a public who is passionately anti-blight and eager to protect their neighborhoods.

Last year the industry was unsuccessful in its attempts to overturn Durham, North Carolina’s longstanding billboard ban and erect digital billboards. Since they lost that fight, they are now working on legislation that will remove local control.

In fact, there is currently a concerted effort by the billboard industry to eliminate local control over sign regulation. Bills have been introduced in four states -- Missouri, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas -- that would take control of billboards away from localities and give it to the state. 

The federal government has also made it difficult for states to remove billboards. Congress has prevented states from using amortization as a tool to remove the thousands of nonconforming billboards along interstate and federal-aid primary highways, instead requiring cash compensation, the funds for which simply no longer exist.

Wayne Senville: Assuming local hands are not tied by state legislation, are there things communities can do to reduce the number of billboards?

Mary Tracy: The first and most important step to reducing sign blight is to prohibit the construction of new billboards, like thousands of communities across the country have already done. This will ultimately result in fewer billboards as some are lost to attrition, some to Mother Nature and others to development. When Houston banned new billboards in 1980, there were some 10,000 signs in the city; today, there are fewer than 3,000.

"So You're From Vermont"

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

Yesterday we posted a response from the Outdoor Advertising Association of America to an article by Ed McMahon, Billboards: The Case for Control (see also my interview with McMahon). I hope you'll read these. I wanted to also offer some of my own perspectives as a resident and business owner in Vermont, a state where billboards have been prohibited since 1968.

It’s happened quite a few times. I tell folks I’m from Vermont, and before you know it, they say something like “We visited Vermont once. You don’t have any billboards up there … it was really nice to be able to drive and see the countryside without them in the way.”

Vermont (and three other states, Alaska, Hawaii, and Maine) have shown that it’s not hard to get along without billboards. In fact, it’s very, very easy to get used to not having them.

Vermont businesses have not suffered over the past 40+ years as a result of a lack of billboards. In fact, with the state’s scenic beauty enhanced, many have benefitted.

The state’s unobtrusive, but easy to spot, roadside signs clearly indicate where to turn to get to a store or businesses you’re looking for. If anything this makes it easier for people to find businesses.

How’s that? First, as a driver you’re not distracted by giant signs towering over fields and countryside. Instead, you can easily spot the distinctive, attractively designed, roadside information signs -- and enjoy the real scenery.

Second, our roadside information signs are a big plus for small businesses. No need to spend big bucks to rent space on a billboard -- or (more likely) be drowned out by billboards taken by big national chains like Holiday Inns, Bob Evans, or Jim Beam and Seagram’s (and their whiskeys).

It's rare to hear anyone say they couldn't find a Vermont business because there was not billboard announcing it. Indeed, as McMahon notes in his article, a former head of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce has said that far from hurting businesses, the removal of billboards “had the opposite effect.”

Controlling billboards is a matter of deciding you want to exercise your right to enjoy a scenic view, to feel more relaxed while driving (or biking, or walking), and to not be subject to a barrage of commercial displays you can’t escape.

What’s more, digital billboards are even more visually intrusive than traditional billboards, with mega-size flashing, changing, and sometimes even rotating images. What does the OAAA have to say about this? Basically, they duck the question, saying that “only a small portion of billboard inventory is digital” -- but failing to acknowledge that their number is rapidly growing.

We’re simply under no obligation to subject ourselves to constant visual assault. As McMahon accurately notes, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the regulation -- and prohibition -- of billboards. As the Court said (in Berman v. Parker) “it is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy.”

Planning commissioners have always worked hard to plan for safe, efficient, and beautiful cities and towns. Indeed, as planning historian Laurence C. Gerckens, FAICP, has noted, the origins of city planning in American centered on “realizing an inspiring good order in the public environment while protecting the positive qualities of both the natural environment and cultural heritage.” See Gerckens, "Community Aesthetics & Planning," PCJ #7.

So what does the case for billboards amount to? Remarkably, it seems (at least from the OAAA’s response) the most important function of billboards, especially the newer digital ones, is to display public service announcements (PSAs).

Response from Outdoor Advertising Association of America to PCJ Article: Billboards - The Case for Control

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

We were recently contacted by the Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) asking for space to respond to an article in our current Winter issue, “Billboards: The Case for Control,” written by Ed McMahon. Given the controversies surrounding billboards and their impacts, we agreed to offer the OAAA space here our PlannersWeb site. The following is their reply, unedited by us.

-- We are also making available, at no charge, a pdf of Ed McMahon’s article. This will help you evaluate the OAAA's response. I also interviewed McMahon about his article earlier this year. That interview is available on the PlannersWeb.

-- See also my own take on the issue, "So You're From Vermont" (posted on Mar. 17, 2011).

We welcome you to weigh in. Join the discussion on the Planning Commissioners Journal Linkedin group page (you need to be a Linkedin user to view our group page; if you're not using Linkedin, I encourage you to try it out).

---

Response from the Outdoor Advertising Association of America to PCJ article: Billboards -- The Case for Control

The Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) would like to let PCJ readers know about the multitude of new tools available to help citizen planners understand billboard regulation.

Digital

Only a small portion of billboard inventory is digital –- only 2,400 units in the country, actually. And, the Federal Highway Administration issued guidance on digital billboards to states in 2007.

Most states have taken steps to regulate digital billboards, conforming to federal standards. Wyoming, for example, regulated digital billboards throughout the state. Here is a sample. Localities also seek partnerships to develop digital billboards. Officials in Mesquite, NV, have just issued an RFP for digital outdoor advertising services.

Although digital technology is new, high-tech billboards have made dramatic gains in energy efficiency. Digital billboard supplier Daktronics says efficiency has increased by 79%, and YESCO reported their digital billboards use one-fourth the power required six years ago.

Government at all levels is using digital billboards as a communications tool. When Albuquerque faced a natural gas crisis, local emergency officials displayed conservation messages on digital units. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has also joined with city officials and law enforcement to improve emergency messaging.

In Hartford, CT, digital billboards are part of the media mix in a federal crackdown on texting while driving. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has reported progress.

The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children transmits Alerts to digital billboards immediately following a serious child abduction, and the FBI and other law enforcement use billboards on behalf of public safety.

Just Like in Baseball, the Fundamentals Remain the Same

We've been periodically posting excerpts from "State of the City" addresses given by mayors from across the U.S. These addresses can offer insights into both innovative programs and challenges facing cities.

Previously posted:

Shoreview, Minnesota, Mayor Sandy Martin

Salt Lake City, Utah, Mayor Ralph Becker

Ashland, Oregon, Mayor John Stromberg

Topeka, Kansas, Mayor Bill Bunten

Albany, New York, Mayor Gerald Jennings

Grand Rapids, Michigan, Mayor George K. Hartwell

Austin, Texas, Mayor Lee Leffingwell

Fort Worth, Texas, Mayor Mike Moncrief

Riverside, California, Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge

---

Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak
State of the City Address (to read the full address given on March 10, 2010); excerpts below:

An economic tornado has ripped through the heart of our city, our country and the global economy. In those months that followed we began to look up and survey the damage. We've been shocked by what we have seen.   

At the end of 2007, the official beginning of the recession, unemployment in Minneapolis stood at 4.3%. Today, it stands at 6.8% -- after peaking in July 2009 at 8.4%.

At the end of 2007, the retail-vacancy rate hovered around 6.0%. Today, it stands at 10.5%

In the middle of 2008, the average traditional-sale price of Minneapolis home was $220,000. Today it stands at $193,500. That's $26,500 less in wealth that the average Minneapolis homeowner can count on.

... The economic devastation in the economy also has a direct impact on basic services in the city. With the state budget in deep crisis, part of the solution proposed by the governor has been to cut an additional $29 million from the City. These are the funds we use to pay for police, fire, road maintenance and other basic services. I am currently working with our finance team and Council leadership to develop a supplemental budget based on deep state cuts. I will present it in early April. It won’t be pretty.

There are some signs, however, that we are turning a corner. Just yesterday, Forbes Magazine ranked Minneapolis Saint Paul the #4 metropolitan area in the country where the recession is easing. Still, even an optimist like me wonders whether we can ever get back to where we were before. But in the year and a half since the economy collapsed, all parts of this city have found a way to make progress. 

... in President Obama we finally have a champion at the federal level. When I stood here one year ago, the president's economic-recovery plan had only just passed. One year later, we've seen what it's meant: Minneapolis alone is benefitting from $60 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We will continue to feel the positive effect of that assistance through this year.

We also have never had such strong partnerships with regional partners. We are working with both the Itasca Group, a coalition of regional CEOs, and the Regional Conference of Mayors on a regional economic development strategies. We have also never worked more closely with Mayor Chris Coleman and the City of Saint Paul, especially on green jobs and transit.

We are like the Twins -- we're playing on a whole new field. But just like in baseball, the fundamentals remain the same. 

... The first fundamental is investing in people. In 2003, we merged Minneapolis' successful job-placement programs into a more powerful department of Community Planning and Economic Development. Since then, we have helped place nearly 11,000 people get training and good jobs. ... Minneapolis is also a national leader in partnering with the business community to develop the workforce for tomorrow. Since 2002, we have placed more than 11,000 young people from Minneapolis in summer jobs, the majority of them through STEP-UP. Last summer alone, we found jobs for 2,270 young people.

... Six years ago, unemployment was one percentage point higher in the city than in the surrounding suburbs. Now, for the first time in decades, unemployment in Minneapolis is below the suburbs, the state and the nation.

... All this effort to develop the workforce is the first, and most important, fundamental in creating jobs. The second fundamental is to invest in the common ground that helps everyone succeed. The common ground includes five key elements: (1) safe neighborhoods; (2) stable neighborhoods; (3) technology infrastructure; (4) well-maintained roads and bridges; (5) expanded transit options. 

Investing in common ground starts with making every neighborhood a Safe Place to Call Home. This has been the top priority of our city government for eight years and that focus has paid off ...  The common ground also including helping neighborhoods stay stable. First, that means preventing foreclosures when we can. Foreclosure counseling and prevention costs the City an average of $500 per household -- but foreclosure costs the public and private lenders an average of $68,000 per household. In 2009, the City helped prevent close to 500 foreclosures -- which means that for an investment of around $25,000, we saved over $30 million in costs.

... The common ground includes technology infrastructure. The Minneapolis wireless network is now complete, and USI Wireless now has over 16,000 residential subscribers. Over 50 Community Technology Centers have free wi-fi access, and this spring here will be over 100 free outdoor wi-fi hot spots throughout the city. Minneapolis continues to lead the way as the first large city to build such a network.

The third fundamental is investing in small business. Too often, economic development means special assistance to just a lucky few big players. But there’s a better way to do it. When government does provide assistance to businesses, it needs to be focused on the job-creation sweet spot of the partnership between the public and private sectors -- and that's small business, where most jobs are grown.

 About five years ago, we began unifying several previously disconnected City programs for small business into a unified effort called Great Streets. To someone who wants to open or expand a business on a commercial street, Great Streets offers gap financing, low-interest loans, façade-improvement matching grants, and business plans and marketing assistance. Since 2007, we have invested $3.7 million on commercial corridors throughout Minneapolis.

... Knowing when to help, and when to get out of the way. With Minneapolis Development Review, we have also streamlined the City's development review processes. In 2005, it took an average of 37 days for the City to route formal development plans. In 2009, it took an average of 10 days. ... In the past year, we integrated Business Licensing into the Service Center, so now, partners can receive new or renewal licenses and obtain permits for many construction-related jobs the same day -- all in one location. ... We've established a Business Development presence at the Service Center so small businesses can meet with City staff to obtain information on low-interest loans and the other services we provide for small businesses.

We're also processing more and more permits via the Internet. In 2003, we processed exactly zero permits on the Internet. Last year, we processed 21% of all permits via the Internet.

... Our greatest challenge right now is the challenge of putting people to work. No one can wave a magic wand and suddenly make jobs appear, especially not now.  There isn’t one single action to take, and nothing right now is easy.  But we know what works:

• Invest in people and the common ground that helps everyone succeed.
• Invest in small business, and innovation.
• Know when to help and when to get out of the way.

Comments by Secretary Ray LaHood at AASHTO Briefing

 Take a look at this quite interesting 8 minute video of U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood speaking at an AASHTO briefing yesterday. Among his comments:

• totally nixes idea of raising gas tax given bad economy & high unemployment; explains that this is just not realistic politically [3:52 into video clip]
• says high speed rail is now at a point comparable to where America was when the Interstate highway system started [5:40 into video clip]
• while saying that highways are still important, strongly defends value of high speed rail, streetcars, & transit; saying that people want more transportation choices and don't want more congestion [6:05 into video clip]

"We Broke the Law Literally ... But All Stood There Together"

A fascinating project in Portland, Oregon, is described in this video. It focuses on bringing neighborhood residents together by building special places, often at local intersections. After seeing this video, I want to organize one of these for my hometown -- it looks like a creative idea that's also great fun! (Just don't tell our Public Works Department I said that). 

For more about City Repair.

When Attorneys for Developers Contribute to Local Candidates

 Came across an interesting op-ed written by Andy Green, a member of the Baltimore Sun newspaper's editorial board. Green's piece discusses a report by Bryan Sears in the suburban Towson Times paper about how attorneys for developers are making substantial campaign contributions to candidates running for spots on the County's governing body. What happens in Baltimore County is certainly not unique in the U.S., and probably not all that unusual. We'd welcome any comment you'd care to add on how politics and land use mix (or are kept apart) in your own community.

• To read the full op-ed, Developers playing politics in Baltimore County? We're shocked! (Dec. 15, 2009)
• To read the article in the Towson Times that the op-ed is responding to, see Development attorneys working to fill war chests for county council hopefuls (Dec. 11, 2009)

Here are some brief excerpts from Green's op-ed.

"Perhaps the most surprising thing about the report by Bryan Sears of the Towson Times that two development attorneys ... are making a major fundraising push to back favored Baltimore County Council candidates in potentially open races is that they're limiting their ambition to three districts. ... Why not try to buy a clear majority? ...

 Land-use decisions are the County Council's most important power -- and certainly the area in which it has the most potential to affect people's pocketbooks. The typical council practice of extending courtesy over land-use decisions to the councilman in whose district a piece of property is located further concentrates the authority and raises the question of whether campaign contributions amount to an investment in good government or in personal profit. It would be shocking if developers and their attorneys didn't play the political money game.

Is it a good thing for the county to have so much influence -- or at least the appearance of it -- concentrated in a few well-maincured hands? Probably not, but there's nothing illegal about it, and there's not much likelihood that crying foul will change the situation."

---

Note from Wayne Senville, Editor, Planning Commissioners Journal:

We've posted a simple "yes/no" poll question on our web site for January asking whether you think it is ethical for attorneys for developers to contribute to candidates for a local governing body. Vote in this poll. Note, you can add additional comments or explanation fafter you vote.

Planning Commissioners Journal columnist Greg Dale has previously touched on issues related to this in his "Ethics & the Planning Commission" column. For excerpts from Dale's articles & to order and download them:

• Who Do You Work For? (when the Mayor sees you as his voice on the planning commission, what should you do?)
• No Strings Attached? (Has anyone ever offered you a gift or favor because you're a planning commissioner?)

Stay Involved in Your Communities

Former Vermont Governor and DNC Chairman Howard Dean, at yesterday's Commencement Ceremonies at the University of Vermont, focused on the importance for new graduates to stay engaged in their communities, whether through service on a planning commission, city council, church vestry, or in other ways.

"Every single one of you has an obligation to stay involved in your communities," he said.

Governor Dean also made the interesting observation that the biggest mistake his generation made, after the activism of the 1960s and 70s was to "take a vacation from politics."