Planning frameworks and the DC Indices guidebook

This blog entry is initiated by the press release at the end of the entry, about the release of the 14th edition of INDICES 2009: A Statistical Index of District of Columbia Services.

Thanks to H-DC for communicating this out to those of us subscribers to the list (which addresses DC-related history and urban issues).
------------

There is some pretty interesting reading in the guidebook.

I likely will never get around to writing a detailed paper about it, but from a theoretical and robustness standpoint, the planning framework in DC, while constantly improving, has room for some significant revision, expansion, and improvement.

For most municipalities, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (or Master Plan) is the closest the local government has to a mission statement and "business plan" and therefore the document ought to be truly comprehensive and thorough.

The Indices guide says that DC produces neighborhood plans but we don't really, the "small area" plans that are produced are not neighborhood plans as much as they are framework plans to guide development, revitalization, and zoning. A neighborhood plan would systematically consider civic facilities (i.e., schools, parks, libraries, recreation centers, transportation -- ideally from the standpoint of sustainability, even the provision of emergency services), and other quality of life factors.

Small area plans and corridor plans ("Great Streets") as mentioned in Indices mostly consider development opportunities and do not consider how a neighborhood is served (or not) by civic assets. So to my way of thinking, they fail the most basic definition of "deliverables" that qualify being termed under the definition of a "neighborhood" plan. (See this web resource guide for more details about what makes great neighborhood planning.)

The Indices guide is very good in explaining what we might call the planning regime and its legal authority.

In the period last year during which amendments could be submitted to the DC Comprehensive Plan, I submitted a bunch, not with the belief that they would be able to be considered, but with an eye towards reorienting how the Planning Office thinks about the plan.

The city's portion of the plan (the National Capital Planning Commission also produces what are called the "Federal" Elements) is organized into two sections, the Citywide or District Elements, and a grab bag of things pushed by Councilmembers and neighborhood groups called Area Elements. District elements pertain to citywide concerns, such as land use and zoning, or transportation, while Area elements, organized into ten geographical sections of the city, are supposed to provide more detailed guidance on neighborhood/subdistrict areas.

I argue that the purpose of planning and zoning is to preserve, maintain, and extend quality of life for residents, while at the same time ensuring the ability of the city to function as a preeminent location to locate and conduct commerce within the metropolitan landscape, and as a place to visit and be entertained.

Another problem with plans is that residents think "it's all about us" and that kind of parochialism is encouraged by city planners and elected officials, but the reality is that for the city to function economically, there are a variety of stakeholders and institutions that comprise "us", and the ability to service "us" needs to be considered as well.

"Us" isn't just people who live in the city, it's also people who visit the city, work in the city, locate businesses in the city, go to school or college in the city, etc. (But if you define "us" only as residents and that is reinforced in the scope of work for various planning initiatives, then end results can be very much flawed. This is the root of my criticism of streetcar planning in the city.)

The city has to be able to function economically and many of the policies promoted by various interest groups across the city aren't economically feasible, when it comes to the reality of having to generate the revenue necessary to run the city and to create, offer, and manage all the programs that people say they want.

For example, many people in neighborhoods dominated by single family housing (either detached or attached), such as Brookland or Georgia Avenue/Brightwood, argue against the insertion of multiunit housing buildings into the neighborhood fabric (ideally such housing is located proximate to high-capacity transit, but also may be located on commercial corridors), arguing instead for either nothing ("we need more parks and open space" is the steady drumbeat*) or for low density housing suitable for families.

But it costs $15,000 per child per year to pay for schooling a child, and most DC households do not generate that much "revenue" per household in terms of property, income, and sales taxes. A household with multiple children costs far more to "service" (also consider the provision of police, fire, library, parks, recreation services, plus sanitation and the maintenance of the street network, paying the city's portion of WMATA transit services, as well as other services provided disproportionately to people in need) than they will ever pay in taxes.

The reality is that the city needs a mix of housing types and a mix of household types in order to better balance the need for services and the ability to pay for services.

I proposed a reorganizing of the plan into four sections. The first would be what I call the Guiding or Leading Elements. Technically, a plan always has a goal or framework element, which the DC Comprehensive Plan does have. But the problem with Comp Plans is that land use ends up being the leading element, and land use, at the end of the day, isn't the most important aspect of the plan.

As the first line** in the introduction to this blog states:

A community’s physical form, rather than its land uses, is its most intrinsic and enduring characteristic.

So having land use be the primary driver of a comprehensive plan is a mistake. What matters most is how projects fit into communities and into the city overall.

In the leading elements section of the plan, my amendments called for urban design, transportation, and economic development (maintaining a city's ability to pay for everything and to be a viable place to live, work, locate business, be educated, shop, and play) to be the leading elements.

The rest of the current elements would be put into the section of "district" elements.

The third section, a new section, would be focused on government agencies, with goals and objectives plans for each agency, ensuring that their policies and practices are congruent with the Comprehensive Plan. For example, the DC Parks and Recreation agency does not at this time have a master plan. One was produced in 2006 but never released to the public. Each agency would have to have their master planning efforts coordinated with the planning office and the comprehensive plan process.

And the fourth section is the same as the current area elements, but ideally it should be produced through a structured framework of defined elements and a defined process without the land use bar and the City Council being able to insert their grubby hands all over the recommendations after the plan has been produced, gone through many public hearings, and then transmitted to Council, after which citizens have very little input or oversight into the process. Sure there are Council public hearings, but they are dog and pony shows.

For example, after the Comprehensive Plan went through a 2 year public process including two sets of hearings at the end, the land use practice at one of the city's leading legal firms submitted 200 pages of proposed changes--note that they didn't do this during the public hearing process, they did this after the public hearing process, submitting the proposed changes directly to the City Council, when average "underconnected" citizens have little substantive access.

I also suggested the creation of a couple new elements to the plan, such as on Civic Engagement, and Tourism Development and Management. The former is important because the entire Home Rule Act and the Planning regime is focused on the EXECUTIVE. The "Mayor" the "Mayor" the "Mayor" rather than acknowledging that government is derived from citizens. Many DC government agencies treat citizens as customers to be served, but not as citizens to be respected. A bunch of words in a Comp Plan element won't change that overnight(!) but it is a start.

The latter element is suggested because tourism is such an important part of the city's economy, that it needs to be addressed more comprehensively than the Economic Development section of the Plan can really do as a broad policy document, and also, the tourism aspect of the city needs more citizen input than is provided currently. Right now the agenda is set by the major corporations (such as Marriott) and their sponsors (such as the business lobbying organization, the Federal City Council).

I didn't submit this as an element, but someday maybe I will write a journal article about how "building a local economy" is different from the traditional elements on "economic development" that are included in master/comprehensive plans.

How projects contribute locally, in terms of jobs produced and the multiplier effect, is a more complex process than business boosters let on. Many projects don't produce a lot in the way of local economic and long term benefit, not to mention what we might call "increasing returns"*** rather than diminishing returns.

Basically, I think of government spending as either economically destructive or economically positive. If a dollar of government spending (other than basic multiplier effects) doesn't generate significant additional investment than it is economically destructive or a "waste" of money. If it induces additional investment than it is economically positive and important to do. (This is a gross simplification of the argument. The idea is that government spending ought not to induce dependence, but should prime the pump and build an even greater economy.)

Sadly, most elected officials don't get this. Their fellow colleagues in the Growth Machine don't usually let them in on how the process really works...

* The point that people advocate for parks and open space not because they want parks and open space but because they don't want anything else was pointed out to me by Dan Malouff in a blog comment. cf. the definition of BANANA -- build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything

** This line is not my own, it comes from this EPA publication, Getting To Smart Growth 2

*** I probably use the term "increasing returns" a little differently than the academicians that coined it. That will be the subject of another blog entry later today, concerning tax incentive and credit programs, mostly using examples from the State of Maryland.
-----------
From email:

OP Announces the Release of INDICES 2009

(Washington, DC) The Office of Planning released the 14th edition of INDICES this week. The DC government publishes INDICES - A Statistical Index of District of Columbia Government Services, every two years. The primary purpose of INDICES is to provide a snapshot of District of Columbia government operations. The snapshot contains data quantifying human and physical services delivered, legislative activities and a general profile of the District.

INDICES is developed to satisfy seven basic information needs, which are: to provide statistical summaries of services delivered by agencies; to provide a comprehensive overview of government activities; to provide information that is accessible to the reader in format and content; to provide information to facilitate the identification of trends; to provide a holistic picture of a service where there may be a number of different providers; to continue delivery of a branded product; and to create synergy between electronic and non-electronic products.

Departments and agencies of the District government provided information for INDICES. The staff of the Office of Planning/State Data Center collaborated with all entities to identify and present information that helps government agencies, residents, students, researchers, businesses and non-profit organizations gain insight into the range of services offered by the District. Most of the data contained in this edition were collected in calendar years 2005 through 2008.

This reference book is organized into 10 chapters, covering such topics as government finance, economic development, human services, District-wide and neighborhood planning, community services, education, public safety, real estate services and housing trends. The Office of Planning continues to keep you informed and updated on data and services. Please add this reference to your library.