As 1971 wore on, I began to learn lessons about urban
planning that weren’t in the books I was reading. In fact, I learned a big lesson
late that spring. It has stayed with me until this day, although a unified solution still
evades.
It concerned a city in the northwest area of the state, a
city that I have mentioned earlier it this venture, so there is no use in further
identification. Suffice it to say that the firm was still receiving a small
retainer to attend monthly planning commission meetings. Whenever possible, I
would accompany Jim Vines to the meetings and take the opportunity to watch
democracy in action, or so I thought.
Understand, although they were my bosses, we were all close
to the same age, our late twenties. Despite a surfeit of education and enthusiasm,
we were just a bunch of kids in a world dominated by alpha-males who had fought
their way to the top of the heap and had no intention of either sharing or relinquishing
control
I was perhaps more starry-eyed than the rest, having just
played a major part, I had been assured, in saving the world from godless Communism
and my country’s domination by the evil empire headed by Russia. Whew.
Jim Vines had his moments of naivete as well. He dutifully
prepared reports on the cases coming before the planning commission, including
recommendations as to appropriate action. On this particular trip, he had
examined one outlandish request coming before the commission and rightfully
recommended disapproval.
The reasons included a possibility of spot zoning (a small zoning
that violates the land use plan and affords benefit to one property owner that
wouldn’t be allowed for others). Also, the approval would allow a destabilizing
effect on the neighborhood and set a questionable precedent leading to further
destabilization. Finally, the city’s street system wasn’t designed for the recommended
use.
It was clear to any observer that the request had no merit.
Oh, wait. There was one factor in favor of granting the request.
The applicant was a close personal friend and supporter of
the mayor.
There was quite a little set-to about the case before unanimous
approval in the disapproving faces of a crowd of concerned citizens. The mayor
sat stone-faced to one side and never said a word. His eyes spoke with exquisite
eloquence, however.
We drove back to Little Rock in silence. Somehow, it seemed
that we were overtaken and passed along the way by a letter formally stating that
the firm’s service would no longer be needed in that city.
The incident provided, as I say some valuable lessons. Urban
planning is as much, maybe more, about politics as it is about purity of
intent. Also, one should make every effort to learn the territory. It is not
unusual in our state to see enmity between two powerful groups, the cause of
which may date back generations. Sadly, a city may be damaged more by its own citizens
than by strangers or external forces. Somehow, they feel they have that right.
And finally, we can always learn from our friends who fight
our wars for us when they tell us that one had best carefully consider what
hill is worth dying upon before committing our all. In ensuing years, I’ve
practiced that warning assiduously and managed to bumble my way through life.
As a consultant you learn, sometimes the hard way, that it
is their city and they may or may not listen to you. Your best efforts may offend and alienate. I would also learn that your own city might regard you with even less respect.
 |
| Well I'll swan. |
No comments:
Post a Comment