Decision Needed On City Guide's 'Primary Client'

Editor's note: This is another in a 10-part series on the meaning of comprehensive planning and its application to Ann Arbor. Based primarily on the book, "The Urban General Plan" by T. J. Kent, this series is sponsored as a public service by The Ann Arbor News, Washtenaw County Metropolitan Planning Commission and the Huron Valley Chapter of the American Institute of Architect s. The articles have been prepared by Roger D. Clemence, an associate member of the chapter, and Robert D. Carpenter, county planning director and associate member. The last article in this series was concerned with the purposes of the plan. Included among them was effective political and technical coordination in community development. In furtherance of this thought we now turn to Mr. Kent's discourse on how this political and technical coordination can best take place. It is one of the most interesting and provocative statements in his book. Although he argues ably for his preference, T. J. Kent is not dogmatic in his approach and makes allowance for relationships other than those found in council - manager forms of government such as in Ann Arbor, and Berkeley, California, where Mr. Kent is a member of the city council. The usefulness of the general plan extends to many clients. Their needs vary, and at times may be in conflict. It is necessary therefore to determine the primary client of the plan- the client whose requirements must be met first. There is the school of thought believes the general plan should be designed primarily for the use of the independent city planning commission. The plan should be adopted only by the commission. With this procedure the city council would be required to refer all physical development matters to the commission for recommendation. The plan would be mainly for the guidance of the commission. It may or may not be published and made generally available. A second opinion sees the city planning director as a staff aide to the chief executive. It presumes that the general plan should be shaped to serve the chief executive. However, the staff-aide concept has not been put into practice. There is no published general plan that has been designed expressly for the use of the chief executive. Undoubtedly there are exceptions, but experience indicates that the typical chief executive does not want a long-range plan to follow that will be publicly identified as his plan. He wants recommendations from the city planners on specific proposals. This concept of the role of city planning usually emphasizes the idea that the plan must be "flexible." It avoids all attempts to establish a unified set of objectives and a definite physical design for the community toward which current actions may be directed. A third group believes that the principal client of the plan should be the professional staff. This school of thought seems to be gaining popularity, Mr. Kent notes, "perhaps because many city planners are uncertain as to their role and because some of the leaders of the profession today do not believe it is possible to make a useful plan for a city in view of the technological, social, and economic changes that make any kind of long range planning so difficult." Those who hold this view usually also consider city planning to be too technical to be understood by laymen, including , city councilmen. They also tend to believe that the city planner is best suited to interpret the public interest. Some want planning to be isolated from politics. Others believe that planning ii highly political and that the planner should be a behind the scenes politician. Kent states "Planners who hold these views sometimes prepare plans for themselves to use as a basis for making recommendations to the city planning commission or chief executive, but they do not reveal their plans." Kent's choice, based upon his experience in Berkeley, is that the city council should be the principal client of the general plan. He further believes that the plan should be prepared for active use by the council. This approach follows from his proposition that city planning is primarily a policy making activity of the city council. Effectively city planning cannot be sustained without the responsible participation of council. In Kent's view, the general plan, thus, should be conceived of primarily as a legislative policy instrument. It should not be seen as a complex technical document to be understood only by the professional staff and possibly some members of the city planning commission. In reality, every city planning decision of significance must sooner or later be made in the council chamber. Such decisions cannot be made in the city planning office. The men who initially formulate a plan must follow through and present it. Its controversial judgments should be exposed to the memers of the council in terms hat are understandable tö the council. The professional planners must seek to make their technical findings and professional judgments convincing to the councilmen. One concept which Kent finds untenable is that the general plan is a kind of ideal picture which the council can lo'ok at when making decisions. T h i s approach presumes that councilmen can compare their own judgments a g a i n s t the staff made plan, but they can disagree with it whenever they wish. Kent believes "that the genleral plan is not something fo ■the council to compare its poli Icies with. It should contain th Ipolicies of the council. If th ■council finds that it disagree ■ with the plan, it should chang the plan." Some city planner largue that councilmen do no I have time to acquire under tanding of a plan, much less i ecide what should go into it. 1 'rue, deliberation over the i ral plan will occupy much of ie councilmen's time. But, 1 rom the viewpoint of the i munity as a whole, this is one I f the most important subjects o which the council shffuld regularly devote its attention. Admittedly, some legislators deliverately shun their responsibility for determining policy. They do not want to commit themselves to long range policies which might prove bothersome or embarrassing later. They want to reserve the Cption ;o make all decisions on án ad ioc basis without regard for consistency. They cali this procedure "deciding an issue on lts merits." This attitude increases the opportunities ior favoritism and allows councilmen to decide an issue by counting up the potential votes on both sides. From Kent's own experience with city councils, he believes that most councilmen do want to be reasonable. They do, in other words, want to deal. with problems and needs by establishing long range policies and maintaining consistency in their actions in order to make tangible progress. They feel an acute need foï a guide in passing on the diverse, complex physical development matters that come Defore them every week. A frequently voiced question at council meetings is:. "What is our policy on this kind of matter?" Often this is answered by referring to previous decisions, regarded as precedents, on üar matters. It would be better answered by referring to well thought out policies exDressed in the form oí a general plan. The general plan answers this need of councilmen for a policy guide on physical developmènt matters. It will inevitably compel commitment or opposition to its policies. There is little doubt that such a plan will severely limit the latitude of action by legislators who cannot learn to" think of the long-range implications of their actions. But once the general plan has been understood and adopted as a result of favorable action by a majority of the m e m b e r s of council, it will pro vide a written and graphic record of the policies and of the physical design on w h i c h council has agreed. The general plan then becomes the basis upon which council can gradually shape a positive physical improvement program that a majority of the community will understand, support and implement. Next: How the Urban General Plan Helps the Council.