Many times planners (myself included) tend to “know what’s best” for people despite the fact that the group being “rescued” does not want our help. I think Michele Zone’s comment was based on “foreign affairs” but this happens quite a bit at home as well. (Correct me if I am wrong MZ, I don’t want to put words in your mouth ).Michele Zone said:...And am one of those dumb Americans with the bad habit of trying to rescue people who didn't ask for it.
The question for this tread is when should planning intervene? When should gov’t “help”. Sometimes I visit a certain bar that attracts the construction/developer crowd and get to hear people discuss property rights over and over. They don’t complain about their developments, but their personal homes. Small issues such as fences, or not being able to cut down trees with out a permit, garage additions and things of that nature. (I have other populous examples but just chose to use this one since I was most recently there).
At first I would just think, “these regs are the best thing for the people”, but now I tend to question. Lets say science knows something is best, every textbook will say its best, every professor would say its best, every planner would say its best, but nobody in the community wants it? You try education, but nothing works to get them on your side.
What do you do? Planning at a local level (focus on the word local here) should be a service to the community citizens, right? So should they be given what they want (i.e. total property rights) if that is what the majority wants? Or given what is “best” for them?
Where is the line? When does a service become a disservice? Or is this post entirely wrong and off the wall?
Should the "beneficial" rules be enforced against majority desire?
I am not sure where the line is. I am still trying to figure that one out. I think I would be better off if everyone would just succumb and give me complete power already