A Plan is a Plan is a Plan
By Albert B. Kelly
To plan or not to plan;
that’s not really the question; because for any municipality, proper planning
is a critical part of success. The question is one of balance. This came to
mind recently as the City completed two City Park studies; one from community
and City stakeholders and another at the hand of a consultant firm. The
municipality also has the required Master Plan, (due for review soon) and a
2009 visioning report as part of a larger state initiative. Beyond these, we
have a multitude of individual project plans, feasibility plans; we have short
term plans and long term plans, and plans on how to plan. Some plans are good
and others…not so much.
But as I said, the
question is one of balance. Plans can be useful tools; helping the organization
to understand its assets and liabilities; providing a context for assessing
strengths and weaknesses, as well as identifying possibilities for growth or
expansion. But plans, as they relate to government, can also lead to a sort of “municipal
sclerosis”; giving constituents the illusion of progress without ever getting
anything done on the ground. If we’re not careful, we could easily find our
shelves filled to overflowing with enough paper to lay waste to a small forest
with nothing much to show for it.
The question of balance
shows itself in other ways as well. Used properly, a master plan helps with
setting priorities, defining goals and visions, suggesting steps and an overall
direction; and this is usually accomplished with broad brush strokes. The
problems come if these broad-brush planning tools morph into “the extent” or
“outer limit” of what can be done; serving as more of a constraint- eliminating
any ideas not specifically contained on its pages. When that happens, creative
thought sort of stops and those charged with long and short term thinking can
become slaves to a plan.
When it comes to
government, a good plan is built on a mix that includes the expertise of professionals
in a given field and the priorities of a majority of the residents on whose
behalf the plan was made. This is an important distinction because if there’s
to be balance, it is here that it must be achieved. Too many times outside
“experts” come in and set forth plans that are really not responsive to the
needs and conditions of the community.
The experts might suggest
a certain activity that is thought to be popular in many communities; except
the one they’re in. Then again these “experts” may suggest plans and
investments that might be completed in years; but at the expense of what can be
accomplished now. My point is that while the professionals might be experts in a
given field, they’re not experts on our community- experts on us- but we are.
We are the experts when it
comes to living in our community…when it comes to “us”. I say that because
every community has its own dynamic. In the case of recent park planning
efforts, we want to strike the right balance between attracting outside visitors
to our park, and serving the needs of our residents who live here day-to-day;
and doing so really is a balancing act.
If we’re weighted too much
to the side of attracting outside visitors, we could find that we’ve invested
in activities and venues that our residents either can’t easily afford or have
little interest in and if we’re weighted too much to the inside, we could find
that we’ve invested too much in areas that have little to no appeal regionally
as a means of attracting outside economic activity in our community.
So the watch word is
“balance”; a balance between long term-capital intensive investments years in
the making and “actionable” shorter term things that residents and visitors can
enjoy and afford now. It is balance between meeting the needs of our residents
as we find them and attracting the attention of outside visitors as we identify
them. It is balance between promoting our strengths and improving our
weaknesses. Whatever we do, let’s make sure we take a thoughtful, flexible, and
balanced approach.