PROFESSOR: Distinguished members of the city council--
good morning, and thank you for meeting with me.
As you know, we will be working with a municipal planning
agency in the drafting of the new master plan for the city.
I address you today because as a first step in the process,
our team requires the council's full support in what we believe
is the best planning framework to achieve the city's two
primary objective-- economic development
in the long term and short-term pollution reduction.
We are aware that not just the city,
but a different set of stakeholders
must work together in order to counter
the impacts of the regional wastewater treatment plant
and the runoff from agricultural activities
upstream that currently discourage investment
in the city.
With this in mind, we propose a combination
of community planning assisted by consensus building exercises
as a pivot for design and implementation of the new plan.
I will spend the next few minutes
explaining how participation will
enhance the value of the plan, highlight aspects of community
building for this space, and conclude
with a particular focus we will use for your city.
Having worked over 15 years in planning efforts
and over 20 different cities, my experience
has taught me that meaningful public participation
is the seed of successful implementation.
Many times I have seen sophisticated master plans
neglecting this fact and as a result,
waste of taxpayers' money because the community perceives
the method as being unfair.
When plans do not connect assessment and design
with public will, this often ends up
hindering economic development by giving way to social unrest
and expensive delays in plans.
Money spent on a planning process instead of a planning
report can truly be called investment
in the public interest.
Participation has a triple bottom line.
It brings additional skills to the planning table,
it provides alternative insights to diminish
risk of economic failure, and generates
learning and cooperation networks
that transcend the plan itself.
We will pursue these benefits through a community planning
exercise where a neutral body will map the main stakeholder
groups surrounding our polluted river.
Peers within the groups will choose a representative
that will participate in having an informed discussion
about the alternatives for environmental improvement
of the city.
I am aware that public participation is not
deeply ingrained in local institutional culture.
In fact, initial conversations with the staff
indicate some reserve.
This is not unusual because of narrow
and procedural applications of public presentation
elsewhere have definitely set a poor precedent.
In the absence of proper management,
public hearings and consultations
are often inefficient and only yield superficial discussions.
Other times the are held hostage by the best organized groups.
With such references, I find it to be
very understandable for any of you
to take public participation with some degree of skepticism.
In order to address these concerns,
my team and I will combine community planning
with consensus building exercises.
In comparison to other strategies,
this framework will use a mutual mediator
that will add credibility and efficiency to the process.
Strive for plurality instead of statistical representativeness,
which is not only expensive but also
ensures that there is a level playing field preventing
majority rules.
The mediator will curate participating groups early
in the process ensuring a fair voice
that reflects your economic concerns
and also that ensures that the rich, racial diversity
of the city is represented at the table.
Finally, this framework will guarantee recommendations
that are feasible because all will be required
to be grounded on a technical expertise provided
by an advisory committee.
Due to little experience with participation in the city,
the outline of the process we proposed
is similar to the one we very successfully used
in Hampton, Virginia, where there was emphasis in learning.
Participants will be trained about river pollution,
the implications of green investment,
and different alternatives to promote economic development.
This will enable full and detailed participation
in the discussion on the proposed Will alternatives.
We are not asking you to give up authority in this matter.
You remain the ultimate decision-makers
to weigh these proposals on their merit.
This exercise is for, and you will
have an unprecedented insight to a range of the concerns of all
of your constituents.
I do request, however, your endorsement
to a public commitment that considers
the inclusion of the negotiated recommendations
in the new plan.
I conclude by pointing out that this method is
relatively inexpensive as compared to others.
An assessment does not need much time or money.
Furthermore, investment and consensus
yields great legitimacy and trust.
And with this, the greatest opportunity
to achieve fair, efficient wise and stable commitments
to come and go.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]