APA: not open to conservative planners?

[hilldweller]

When I started my career, in very consevative, rural places, it was possible to have a productive conversation about planning because we could step past ideology to the facts and talk about how to address the impacts of development on other folks who also have some rights. Modern ideological conservatism has made it difficult to have that conversation because it asserts property rights as absolute.

My advice to the "conservative" planners here in Cyburbia is to attend some planning meetings in a place like north Idaho, where the conservatives come well armed and all belong to a militia or the Klan. There is where you will see the actual, factual utlimate result of the modern intepretation of property rights. And while I know some of you will rush to deny this, that is where you will see the America (?) that modern conservatism is attempting to create.

I hasten to add that the America modern liberalism is trying to create would be a kinder, gentler, but equally nonfunctional place. All of this ideology is so useless. I used to think that the people who actually get things done work in the middle. But I have come to realize that that is a misperception. The only people who are getting things done in these days of ideological gridlock are stepping off that old conservative-liberal axis altogether and leaving it behind, where it belongs. If we have a future, it is a future where the conversation is about responsibilities, not about rights.

Lee, you're being unfair by claiming that those wackos in North Idaho represent the modern conservative movement in property rights. These folks live in an extremely homogenous rural setting and don't have to contend with the combative issues posed by urban development, especially those of a socio-economic character. Of course they want their property rights at all costs. But for the majority of the rest of America land use planning decisions involve significant trade-offs, and thus winners and losers. These tradeoffs create demands for regulatory regimes (planners) in urban areas that you won't have in rural Idaho. So don't compare apples and oranges.

And your whole point about modern ideological conservatism asserting property rights as absolute misses the mark. IMO you can't translate current, national political paradigms to land use issues since planning issues are inherently local in nature. Consequentely, nimbys come from all political persuasions. Ideology thus means very little when it comes to the siting of a coal-fired power plant. Suddenly the entire community is made of up enviromentalists. An anecdote: the most environmentally conscious community in Florida (Martin County) votes solidly Republican.

What is unique about our profession IMO is that there is much more consensus than is expressed within other political realms. Regardless of partisian affiliations all of us want livable communities and want good schools, safe streets, clean water, etc. I don't see how partisan ideologies are threatening this.

[Reductionist]

An anecdote: the most environmentally conscious community in Florida (Martin County) votes solidly Republican.

Do you know the history of Martin County’s environmental consciousness?

A big part of it was due to my grandfather whom a certain bridge in Stuart is named after. He was a small ‘c’ conservative in the traditional sense, an avid outdoorsman who loved nature and truly believed in the importance of conservation. But his brand of conservatism peaked in the 1950s and 60s and has very little in common with the modern conservative movement which cares little for conservation, instead choosing to further the interests of the wealthy and corporate classes at the expense of everything else.

What is unique about our profession IMO is that there is much more consensus than is expressed within other political realms. Regardless of partisian affiliations all of us want livable communities and want good schools, safe streets, clean water, etc. I don't see how partisan ideologies are threatening this.

At the local level no, but at the national level partisan ideologues are most certainly having an impact on the quality of education, clean air and water, along with questionable economic policies that have lead to poverty across the board in American cities. Or have you been asleep for the last 5 1/2 years?!?

[Lee Nellis]

I stand by my read of the modern conservative movement and where it is headed. Those wackos represent precisely the type of society the religious right and the oil companies both want - passive consumers whose attention is totally distracted by issues like gun control while someone else quietly makes all the important choices for the rest of us.

And I do not know of any places that deal with more complex, difficult land use issues than rural communities. It is far more challenging to juggle local, federal, and state lands and laws in resource-dependent rural economies than it is to negotiate deals with developers here in the 'burbs. I work hard here, but it is no stress at all compared to trying to do the same job in rural Idaho.

[Man With a Plan]

I think you may be equating "conservative" with "supporing big business". I think for the most part the ideal "conservative planner" is a proponent of strong property rights, whereas the "liberal planner" is a proponent of strong government regulation.

That is a very popular view. My thought is that most land use regs are conservative because they are so restrictive. For example, i used to work for a city that required a front yard setback of 30' for every residential district!!! In addition, they have zoning districts where you need a 30,000 square foot lot to build only a single family house!!! This is in an area where the cost of housing has skyrocketed. In practice only affluent people who drive an auto can live there. It’s strong government regulation, but it is very conservative.

[Reductionist]

I stand by my read of the modern conservative movement and where it is headed. Those wackos represent precisely the type of society the religious right and the oil companies both want - passive consumers whose attention is totally distracted by issues like gun control while someone else quietly makes all the important choices for the rest of us.

And I do not know of any places that deal with more complex, difficult land use issues than rural communities. It is far more challenging to juggle local, federal, and state lands and laws in resource-dependent rural economies than it is to negotiate deals with developers here in the 'burbs. I work hard here, but it is no stress at all compared to trying to do the same job in rural Idaho.

I agree with you Lee. Tis July 24th article from High Country News provides an excellent example of how the "convservative" property rights movement is dishonestly taking advantage of the backlash against Kelo to push a radical agenda (currently on the ballot in six states) aimed at defining most government planning efforts as a taking, effectively negating any sort of meaningful planning in the process. This agenda isn't new of course, as it dates back more than 20 years, but the poorly considered Kelo verdict has given them the perfect stalking horse to get an agenda passed by a public that is largely ill informed when it comes to the complexities of land use regulation.

http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Arti...icle_id=16409#

[GregY]

Somewhat related to this subject of conservative planners, some might have heard of a recent book by Rod Dreher called "Crunchy Cons" (crunchy as in granola). In it he presents several examples of a growing number of environmentally-conscious, organically-eating, socially-concerned conservatives. To some extent this is where I find myself. I'm chose to go into planning in part because of my love for urban areas and desire to see our communities become better looking and better functioning for all people. With that philosophy, I agree with quite a bit of the APA's views. On the other hand, I am religious and a traditionalist and so I must shrug off and ignore the typical right-wing bashing that I see in some planning circles (including this thread). Politically, I am homeless. Professionally, I agree that politics are to a large extent left behind and you try to build consensus and aim for quality.

[Seabishop]

Its tougher to label what's conservative and what's liberal at the local level. Are No-Growth rich people liberal because they want strict land use controls or are they conservatives because they want to maintain their island of affluence? If you support New Urbanist style regulations in town are you a liberal because you value mixed-income integration or are you a conservative because you want government to loosen its restrictions on land uses?

[Lee Nellis]

I want to say that I an quite sympathetic to "crunchy cons," who are poltically homeless these days. But as long as you continue using the conservative label you are doing nothing but lending aid and comfort to people who are not at all conservative in the classical sense,andt have appropriated that term because it serves their interests so well. Further, given their economic power and the consequent ability to manipulate so many folks who feel threatened by modern life, there is no hope of taking either the label or the Republican party back from them. Someone is going to have to revive either the Progressive Party of Bob LaFollette or Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party to provide a conservative voice that thinking people can respect.

And while I agree with Seabishop, hilldweller, and others that it is sometimes hard to say who is conservative and who is liberal when it comes to local issues, I can tell you from bitter experience that local property rights debates are constantly (and easily) used as evidence supporting radical actions in the broader policy arena. There is a relationship, a definite relationship, and while a local planner can sometimes reach a reasonable compromise/balance, the local discourse about property is still virtually always used to support a radical agenda at the state and national levels.

[hilldweller]

Someone is going to have to revive either the Progressive Party of Bob LaFollette or Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party to provide a conservative voice that thinking people can respect.

Heck, I'd settle for Pat Buchannon or Newt Gingrich now

[luckless pedestrian]

practice in New England at least once in your career - you can have the severe left and right on the same side of a local land use issue - it's fascinating, actually...

again, thanks to Lee for being more articulate than I on this -

[BKM]

Heck, I'd settle for Pat Buchannon or Newt Gingrich now

Heck, as a very socially liberal moving steadily towards radical libertarian (in my thinking if not my behavior), I would prefer Pat Buchanan to the current crowd, or their DLC Democratic Party non-alternatives. Newt Gingrich? Sorry-he's a nasty man who is one of the key reasons we are where we are at today.

[hilldweller]

Heck, as a very socially liberal moving steadily towards radical libertarian (in my thinking if not my behavior), I would prefer Pat Buchanan to the current crowd, or their DLC Democratic Party non-alternatives. Newt Gingrich? Sorry-he's a nasty man who is one of the key reasons we are where we are at today.

I guess my point was that anybody would be better than a neo-con. I see your point in that Newt led the charge of social conservatism and bible bigotry. But I certainly don't equate that movement with neo-con's war-at-all-costs regime in power today. And I don't recall endless resource war being one of the tenets of the Contract With America.

[NHPlanner]

BKM & hilldweller - Please stay on topic, this isn't the thread to be discussing politics in general. Keep the thread on track about the APA issue please, since we're not in the FAC.

[chrisinmd]

I tend to agree with you that APA is dominated by left wing liberals who don't necessarily reperesent my point of view. After being in the profession for 27 years, both private and public, I believe if you want to save some land, go buy it, don't expect the owner to sacrifice their happiness or profit to benifit mankind.

There tends to be a philosphy, implied and expressed that the car is an evil instrument that has done harm to our society. I disagree, I like my car, if I was independently wealthy I would buy one a year. I think the profession, APA, needs to get over it and accept that we a car-oriented society and start planning for that reality. I do think we should do what Brazil does, run our cars on ethanol, lets put all the farmers back to work and stop paying them to not grow corn. Let's let the Middle east keep all their oil for themselves. (sorry for the soap box).

Public planners don't do much planning, we do a lot of regulating, zoning, subdividing and never say no to anything that comes down the pike into our communuity, The profession needs to ask itself why can't we say no to anything.

I tend to agree with the idea that its not right to condemn someone's property then sell it to a developer for economic development. I can support condemning property for some public purpose, like a school, fire house, etc.

[Nicolo Macchiavelli]

The terms Liberal and Conservative do not really mean much other than marketing tools in the particular US political system. Both parties are Liberal by classical definitions. Several posters have pointed out how our normal designations break down when it comes to local land use issues. Planning does by definition involve more government activism than does not planning, or just letting the dollars, and who possesses them plan for us. In Europe both Bush and Clinton are Liberals and globalization of economic activity is referred to as the "Liberal consensus" or the "Washington consensus". Both terms are used as a sneer by the opposing camps who are really not that far apart. Most planning debate does not bother to define terms. And, in the big picture there is really not a big difference between what we call liberal and what we call conservative. The terms that really clearly define things are more common in Europe, Socialist and Capitalist. And you know what? In Europe both Christian Democrats and Socialists manage to do a lot better more complete land use planning than either group in the US. The Conservatives (CDU) that just took over Germany will do much more aggressive complete planning than would the most "Liberal" in the Kennedy, McGovern Democratic Party.

[Suburb Repairman]

I'm not near as eloquent in expressing my views...

The thing APA has forgotten is "Choice". Planners do not exist to solely promote NU paradises where everyone rides bikes to work and walks to the grocery store. We exist in large part to facilitate informed discussion and pros/cons to any issue (there's a downside to everything, even our "precious" NU). We are not the decision-makers, at least not in the public sector; that job is left to representatives of the community. We should be working to promote choice. Should we encourage TND, etc.? Sure. Should we prohibit cul-de-sacs and lollypop subdivisions? Absolutely not. We need to make sure people can choose how they want to live, while also ensuring they are aware of the consequences of their decisions.

I often disagree with the APA. I really don't value their opinion whatsoever as they have become increasingly out of touch with reality sitting in their ivory tower in downtown Chicago. They often see regulation as a bludgeoning tool for developers, when it should be used as a scalpel. They see property rights as a barrier to efficient planning rather than looking for innovative methods to encourage (not require) people to develop is a certain manner. I made a comment during a session at the APA conference to a speaker that zoning was not the most effective tool to accomplish most planning goals--he looked at me like I was some sort of nut job.

I agree with some others' statements that the truely successful planners are those that can look through and beyond personal preferences and use aspects of all ideologies to come up with the best possible solution. Sometimes it results in increased regulation, sometimes it doesn't.

I had the privalege to sit in a room with a few other young planners that assisted with the San Antonio conference. Three older, very highly respected planners (20-30 years experience each) that assisted with the conference engaged in a conversation running the gammitt of planning issues--none of them showed a preference toward a particular ideaology and used pieces of many different stances to support their solutions. Though I'm only 24, this was by far the most stimulating, thought provoking discussion I have ever heard regarding planning. By the time it was over the big thing each of us young planners took away is that no single ideology provides the solution. If only the APA leadership could have been there to hear it.

[Vlaude]

APA is getting out there in my opinion... Planning in China - what the heck is that all about? Sure its growing, opportunities there, and a need for it but why the "BIG" push through the "American" Planning Association??? Second, Gay & Lesbian planning??? GET A GRIP!!! I'm still waiting for Heterosexual Planning. WHAT THE HECK does sexuality have to do with planning. I'm afraid they missed the mark on these issues and I could go on. The APA is getting further and further away from what the core of planning is. At times I seem to think distancing myself from APA is not a bad thing, yet it is sad because Planner need an association to promote itself. I don't think APA is doing that in the best manner for planning across the board. Thinking about it, I guess I am to blame along with other APA members who don't speak up. Maybe its time to start pushing back???

[gkmo62u]

srepairman: well put.

[Plan-it]

APA is getting out there in my opinion... Planning in China - what the heck is that all about? Sure its growing, opportunities there, and a need for it but why the "BIG" push through the "American" Planning Association??? Second, Gay & Lesbian planning??? GET A GRIP!!! I'm still waiting for Heterosexual Planning. WHAT THE HECK does sexuality have to do with planning. I'm afraid they missed the mark on these issues and I could go on. The APA is getting further and further away from what the core of planning is. At times I seem to think distancing myself from APA is not a bad thing, yet it is sad because Planner need an association to promote itself. I don't think APA is doing that in the best manner for planning across the board. Thinking about it, I guess I am to blame along with other APA members who don't speak up. Maybe its time to start pushing back???

To come to APA's defense a little here, supporting networking between similar individuals whether they be african-american, women, or gays and lesbians is not a bad thing. They provide a forum for ideas, they are not supporting planning for gay and lesbian communities, because there are none. Just like there are no women communities or african-american communities. But they are trying to support the cultiviation of talent within these populations and providing a venue for discussion that could be beneficial to those member that choose to participate in one of those forums.

[Vlaude]

Plan-it, yes I understand exactly what they are trying to do, but what they are doing is wrong in my opinion. Sexuality has relatively nothing to do with the planning world. If this is the case why do they not market to the Straight Conservative??? To me it is absurd they are doing this! Its not about marketing to different sectors of planners, its foremost about assisting all planners with their functions. Being Gay or Lesbian is not a function of planning, sorry... If I am mistaken, then I would like to request a section to market to Fisherman planners, and yes I guess I would allow Fisherwomen to join as well... I think you get my point. It really has nothing to do with planning...

[jaws]

Is there such a thing as a conservative or liberal urbanism? Can an association such as the APA be biased against conservatives? The one size must fit all mentality underlying today's urban planning creates this divisiveness. It is not that the different factions are being selfish or partisan. They are reacting to a specific need from a specific demographic, and it is the democratic system, where one ideology must triumph over all others, that breeds partisanship.

Take for example the creation of cul-de-sac subdivisions. They are demanded to respond to a specific need, the creation of a safe buffer for young children to explore. There are an infinite range of possibilities as to how this need can be fulfilled, but so long as a political majority is necessary to control the production of urbanism, that range of different possibilities must be narrowed to what a large number of people can agree on. If another group of people prefers short walking distances and connectivity, that second group must necessarily be at odds with the first, even though there is nothing more right or wrong about its position.

Let's apply this scenario to a quiet, uncontroversial industry: shoes. Imagine that all shoe companies within a certain area were required to produce and sell only one model of shoes. To decide what model of shoes were to be produced, elections are regularly held for the office of footwear commissionner. What would happen as a result? Well, since a majority of voters is necessary to control the post of commissioner, and since every voter has a different need for a pair of shoes, two coalitions will form that will propose two radically different model. One model will be that most closely adapted to the conservatives, the other model will be that most closely adapted to the liberals. It doesn't matter what ideology or activity the two factions are concerned with. Maybe the liberals do a lot of physical activity while the conservatives prefer shoes adapted to business formalwear. There's nothing right or wrong about them, but in the end they must fight bitterly to control the shoe monopoly, otherwise they will no longer be able to conduct their favorite activities.

The absurdity of such a system is evident. Thankfully we have a free market in shoes that provides a range of models varying in function, size and even price as great as the shoe industry has been able to provide with its limited means. Individual people are free to choose the exact pair that fits them the most, and the shoe industry is free to introduce new models even better adapted to their particular, individual needs.

There will not be real progress in urbanism until the industry as a whole accepts that different models of urbanism can easily coexist, offering the range and quality of products common in every other industry where free choice, not monopoly, is the rule. Partisan politics follows from the majority takes all system, and can be eliminated by adopting the free market system.

[Plan-it]

Plan-it, yes I understand exactly what they are trying to do, but what they are doing is wrong in my opinion. Sexuality has relatively nothing to do with the planning world. If this is the case why do they not market to the Straight Conservative??? To me it is absurd they are doing this! Its not about marketing to different sectors of planners, its foremost about assisting all planners with their functions. Being Gay or Lesbian is not a function of planning, sorry... If I am mistaken, then I would like to request a section to market to Fisherman planners, and yes I guess I would allow Fisherwomen to join as well... I think you get my point. It really has nothing to do with planning...

I do not see what issue there is for a group of people regardless if it is gay, women, african-americans, or christians to decide that they would like to expand their networking options within a larger organization. The only time groups like this even meet is during the annual conference. Not only that, but general membership dues are not going towards these groups. An individual has to pay extra money to join one of these networking venues. How is that interferring with your experience in APA if your dues are not even going to support it?

[Vlaude]

Plan-it, ok where do you draw the line??? I personally do not think APA should be involved, all kinds of issues arise from outsiders and even people within the organization in my opinion that start to distract and weaken what the APA is and should be. It has no place in APA, if a specific group of APA members want to catch up, create website, etc.. so be it, that is great! That is not something APA should be promoting though. I guess we could have PLANNERS FOR PETA, PLANNERS FOR EATING TASTY ANIMALS, PLANNERS FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE RAINFOREST... The list can go on... It shouldn't be linked with APA. Again if planners want to start their own organization, group, etc. that is their right and they should do so, but APA does not and should not be involved if it is not a legitimate planning function!

[Planderella]

Plan-It and Vlaude, while you both make valid points, your discussion regarding specific divisions in APA is in danger of running this thread off-course. If you want to continue to debate the issue, then please start a new thread or refer to either this thread about APA divisions or this one. Thanks!

[geobandito]

Plan-It and Vlaude, while you both make valid points, your discussion regarding specific divisions in APA is in danger of running this thread off-course. If you want to continue to debate the issue, then please start a new thread or refer to either this thread about APA divisions or this one. Thanks!

I'd like to respond to Vaude's comments, so I'll move it to the first thread Planderella suggested. And, having read that one, sadly I see a few other things I'd like to respond to.