Planning in the 21st CenturyBY MARY R. ENGLISH
Part of a growing series on land use planning published by Island Press, Community Planning is modestly titled. It provides much more than an introduction: it gives the reader a working acquaintance with community planning.
In the United States, the concept of comprehensive local planning dates back to the City Beautiful movement spawned by the 1892 Columbian Exposition in Chicago. In the late 1920s, the concept took off on a grand scale with the Standard City Planning Enabling Act published in 1928 by the U.S. Department of Commerce as a companion to its 1926 Standard Zoning Enabling Act. Both were the culmination of the work of a commission appointed in 1921 by Herbert Hoover, then Secretary of Commerce.
While the Department of Commerce's model acts were simply that-models-they provided helpful guidance to states. In 1926, local land use zoning had received the blessing of the U.S. Supreme Court in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., which sanctioned the use of public regulatory power to specify how private land may be used. To enable and provide direction for local zoning and planning, states passed legislation patterned on the Department of Commerce models.
Now more than 70 years old, these models have been scrutinized and alternatives have been proposed-by the American Law Institute and the American Planning Association, for example-but virtually all state zoning and planning legislation harkens back to these two standard acts. They are premised on the idea that good government requires professionalism grounded in fact-based analysis and dispassionate forecasting.
Just as you can take a trip without an itinerary, you can zone without a comprehensive plan. Properly done, however, a comprehensive plan brings logic, foresight, and defensibility to zoning and other community decisions. Sometimes called a master plan or a general plan, a comprehensive plan is, as Kelly and Becker note, "a tangible representation of what a community wants to be in the future."
Today, full-blown comprehensive plans typically include inventories of existing conditions, statements of needs and goals, and implementation strategies. Comprehensive plans also broach topics such as population, housing, land use, economic development, public facilities and infrastructure, natural resources, and cultural resources. These are often described in some detail, accompanied with maps and information on historic trends and projections. The comprehensive plan may also detail more specific plans for special areas such as a city's downtown, or special topics such as open space and recreation.
Community Planning is contemporary in its orientation. Kelly and Becker frequently note the need for early and continued involvement of citizens and elected officials in community planning processes. Nevertheless, the book is in keeping with the rationalist, "good government" spirit that motivated the U.S. Department of Commerce's model acts. It provides a systematic, well-thought-out guide to the community planning process.
Kelly and Becker's book was written to serve as a text for introductory classes in planning at the undergraduate or graduate level, and it moves from the general to the specific of tangible plans, the nuts and bolts of developing and implementing plans. The book wraps up with practical information useful not just to students, but also to community leaders with no formal training in planning on what work to expect from planners and on ethical issues to consider in planning. To assist the teacher or the self-taught reader, each chapter concludes with exercises, discussion questions, and annotated suggestions for further reading. The book also has an extensive bibliography.
Over the past few decades, debates have arisen about the utility of comprehensive plans. Are they worth the effort? Is the process of planning really more important than the document itself? Does anyone actually use the plan? As federal subsidies for local comprehensive planning processes dwindled in the 1980s, the popularity of massive plans waned.
Kelly and Becker acknowledge this shift, and they also point out that planning is inevitably political: despite the best efforts of the government reformers, planning remains political with a small p. At its best, it transcends politics and builds consensus across political coalitions. At its worst, it can become so embroiled in local political issues that it loses its credibility and effectiveness.
Nevertheless, this book is testimony to Kelly and Becker's conviction that planning and comprehensive plans, properly done, can and should make a positive difference.
Mary R. English, Energy, Environment and Resources Center, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
This review originally appeared in the Fall 2000 issue of FORUM for Applied Research and Public Policy.
