APA: not open to conservative planners?

[Vlaude]

LOL, moved it back to other thread...

[PsychFugue]

Hi Hilldweller,

You said "..A big part of it was due to my grandfather whom a certain bridge in Stuart is named after.." - is that the Evans Crary bridge? I know the area well, my family is one of the "old families" that helped to establish Martin County in its early days.

I was also involved in the state-mandated planning process during the late 1970's, and understand the battles involved intimately. I helped to identify about 56,000 acres to be placed into conservation, expecting little if any of it to fly. I was pleasantly surprised to find most remained intact after I had moved away.

You also said "..He was a small ‘c’ conservative in the traditional sense.." - many "old school" conservatives were Democrats in the time period up to the 1960s as conservatism was less of a partisan value then as it is now.

Urban planning is most definitely a part of a community's consciousness, which means little in the political spectrum. NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) is the credo which drives many communities through planning issues which may otherwise clash with their own political/ideological base. Those issues often have far more at stake than what is seen on the surface.

A good example is in my own region of Upstate NY, many are fighting against a federally-supported power supply corporation that is attempting to run a huge electrical feed line through many smaller communities, splitting them in half and creating a huge eyesore for all the residents. One would think "common-sense" and the "greater-good" would prevail so ample electrical supply is available for all who need it - and the residents would support it. Yet underlying its construction is it will be used to deliver adequate sources of electicity to NY City and downstate regions, not for local residents. To add insult to injury, its construction would increase our local electricity prices upwards of a 20-30% increase. That is why it is being fought against, "..tooth and nail.." This area is very conservative according to NY standards, yet the NIMBY idea AND the insult of higher costs, will keep it out of its designated path.

Bottom line... it will be constructed but diverted from the local small communities... it will still increase our electric rates... and in addition, it will cost the taxpayers of NY State more for having to alter its proposed route. Sometimes, it seems none of us actually win, LOL

[wahday]

First off, I am not particularly fond of the APA either. Just renewed my membership - why is it so frickin' expensive?! I am a member of the National Historic Trust which also holds a big annual conference (a big ticket item). The cost for an individual membership? $25.

At the same time, though, I think some things about APA have been misrepresented here (though I'm not saying it is on purpose). The role of the APA is to not only establish "best practices" on the major land use and planning issues of our time, but also to provide a professional resource for planners to network and even deal with issues in their places of work.

The division for Gay and Lesbian issues, for example, deals a lot with fairness in the workplace and other professional support. It is a resource for what people's rights are and how others have dealt with the unpleasantries of being "out" at work (or not being out for that matter). This is a common role for professional societies in many professions. They also look at issues that impact the gay and lesbian community at large which has implications for things like housing discrimination, demographic analysis, economics and homeownership. The same is true of divisions for African-American, Latino, etc. communities. These divisions help network people of similar backgrounds who have historically been underrepresented and can use that wider support.

I would think there actually might be grounds for a Conservative Planning Division under this reasoning. It would provide a forum for networking and a consolidation of efforts to hammer out articulated positions on key issues. This might be more effective in advancing a different model(s) for future growth in America rather than throwing pot shots at the status quo from the sidelines.

For the record, I do not see any division for Chinese Planning, only an International Planning division. There is a big focus on planning in China at the APA now for obvious reasons (its called the Olympics and it is ushering in a new era of access for outsiders). Personally, I think it would be foolish for an organization like the APA NOT to be informed about planning trends abroad. Aside from planners that would like to live and work outside of the US, any professional discipline should be surveying the world for examples of best practices, sharing models and understanding how others are dealing with similar problems. It makes us smarter (in theory). China builds brand new cities from scratch on a regular basis. Shouldn't this be something planners are studying and watching closely?

Lastly, I was wondering exactly what processes the APA uses to establish its policy positions. This is probably the place to be injecting alternative viewpoints, but I am not familiar with how it all works, who is involved, and how it all unfolds.

I find it interesting that nowhere on the APA site can I find their mission statement (which they are required to have). This would likely clear up a lot of questions and information being batted about here as it would clearly state what the purpose of the organization is. At present, I can't really figure out what exactly that is...

Personally, I am a progressive, but in working with a variety of local communities, I enthusiastically embrace the ability of people to collectively devise innovative solutions to their problems. Sometimes this means adopting an approach that is not entirely consistent with ideas like "smart growth" and I think, within reason, this is acceptable. At the same time, I do believe there is an at times unsavory role that planning must play in our future to manage growth and development in a manner that is not only sustainable (by which I mean simply things like maintaining roads and infrastructure with available resources) but considers society at large and into the future.

[Suburb Repairman]

I actually think creating a "conservative" section might not be a bad idea, assuming it would actually function the way a section is supposed to. Here are some of my thoughts on how it could help with APA's advocacy and lobby efforts:

I think it is helpful to have a dissenting opinion or loyal opposition within an organization. It keeps everyone honest, and should result in better articulated policy statements for the overall organization.

It would provide the APA a useful perspective when the political stars are not in perfect alignment for what tends to be a fairly liberal profession. Having a stronger conservative voice within APA might have helped them in pushing policy initiatives during the past eight years. For many of APAs policy statements, there is some element of conservative reasoning that can be applied that they seem to rarely mention.

[hilldweller]

Hi Hilldweller,

You said "..A big part of it was due to my grandfather whom a certain bridge in Stuart is named after.." - is that the Evans Crary bridge? I know the area well, my family is one of the "old families" that helped to establish Martin County in its early days.

That was Reductionist that said that, not me.

You also said "..He was a small ‘c’ conservative in the traditional sense.." - .

Same here.

There is a quote tag that can be used to respond to comments. Welcome to Cyburbia.

[Rickyrab]

I am a liberal Republican. Liberal, because I feel that people need to help one another and that people on the bottom need some help from people on the top, and people on the top have the moral obligation to help them. Liberal, too, because planning is a function and a responsibility of society as a whole, not as any one individual. Republican, because the Democratic Party is a bit messed up, because just including us liberals and excluding the conservatives isn't going to get us anywhere, because the GOP needs some level-headed people to draw it closer to the center of politics and away from the right, because America needs a strong centrist third party - and the Republicans can take advantage of major-party standing by becoming more centrist.

That ideal also influences my philosophy. Consequently, I feel the APA SHOULD be more open to conservative planners: it ought to be an open tent, available to all sorts of ideas.

That being said, I am not sure if "liberalism" and "conservatism" are the best terms to describe political movements and positions. Liberalism suggests change, embracing the new; conservatism suggests tradition, relying on settled ways and philosophies. The problem is that both American "liberalism" and "conservatism" are old philosophies by now. What is "liberal" is the idea that people, through the government, should help people financially and through infrastructure and planning, and thus enable people to choose what lifestyle to live, while what is "conservative" is the idea that people should help themselves and each other through businesses, voluntary organizations, and good old fashioned do-it-yourselfism. The goals are mostly the same: people want to get more affluent and have happy, healthy, safe homes. It seems to me that "liberalism" is more of a city philosophy, while "conservatism" is more of a countryside philosophy. In addition, there are economic and cultural aspects. Whereas "liberalism" has a communitarian, Robin Hoodish approach to economics, "conservatism" is more libertarian economically; whereas "liberalism" encourages social and cultural freedom and new cultural practices, "conservatism" encourages traditions.

lol you know you've been watching conventions too long when you talk like they do.