Spotlight on Zoning Practice
When More Participation Isn’t Better
Planners on the front lines of zoning administration know that the people who regularly attend and offer testimony at public hearings for land use applications tend to be older, wealthier, and whiter (on average) than the wider community. Over the past few years, many communities have gotten better at using digital and hybrid meeting formats and online commenting tools to make it easier for less regular attendees to weigh in on pending applications. But what if we're focusing our attention on the wrong point in the planning process?
As Anika Singh Lemar notes in the September issue of Zoning Practice, "Doing Public Participation Better," an overreliance on discretionary land use decisions, makes it challenging for planners and local officials to advance broader policy priorities, such as expanding housing supply. The answer, then, may not be more participation but, rather, better participation.
Why the Status Quo (Often) Stinks
According to Lemar, the status quo for public participation in zoning and land use decision-making processes is not effective at including underrepresented voices, countering misinformation, or evaluating the usefulness of input. Soliciting feedback on development applications, understandably, creates an expectation that local officials will use that feedback to guide their decisions. But, in many cases, these discretionary review processes become "garbage in, garbage out" exercises.
Existing homeowners are disproportionately likely to pay attention to development proposals, comment negatively on those proposals (even when they are consistent with broader policy priorities), and punish incumbents at the ballot box if those officials don't heed their concerns. Consequently, unfounded opinions about the negative effects of new housing (or renewable energy facilities or social service uses) often carry the day. And, to paraphrase Lemar, it's hardly self-evident that people who are comfortably housed should have a greater say than those seeking new homes (or more equitable access to amenities or services).
How We Can Do Better
As a planner, it's uncomfortable to suggest that too much public participation can be a bad thing. But the truth is that more input doesn't equal better input. Perhaps the most effective change planners can advocate for is concentrating public participation efforts on plan-making and policy formation. Building broad-based consensus on a vision and priorities for the community can embolden local officials to authorize more "by-right" development.
Lemar also highlights several approaches that can help counteract the worst tendencies associated with the participation status quo. For example, planners can do a better job of bringing project information to the community by tabling at festivals and neighborhood events and partnering with schools, churches, and social service providers — rather than just relying on minimum notification requirements.
Additionally, planners can educate planning and zoning board members on planning principles and legal requirements or even advocate for statutory or regulatory reforms that can foster more representative participation in plan-making and policy formation, while reducing the reliance on discretionary land use approvals.
Subscribe to Zoning Practice
Each issue of Zoning Practice provides practical guidance for planners and land-use attorneys engaged in drafting or administering local land-use and development regulations. An annual subscription to ZP includes access to the complete archive of previous issues.
Top image: Semen Salivanchuk / iStock / Getty Images Plus