The opportunities for citizen input in government
decision-making are myriad. Sometimes these opportunities are
ignored, sometimes not used to their best advantage. Sometimes,
though, citizen participation serves as the single most important
reason that governments are considered successful and responsive,
the localities "good" places to live and do business. The case
examples showcased here represent only a few of the many
approaches and the array of opportunities available to bring
citizens into planning and decision-making.
Each of the cases offers one or more lessons for planners with
regard to citizen participation. Among them:
1. Planning is not only about land use and development, it is
about lives and livelihoods, about people having some perspective
on -- some control over -- their future health and well-being,
their destiny, and that of their community. If they are not
involved in a process that will ultimately decide this future,
they perceive a loss of control over their lives and their
property, and will rebel against government action -- even if they
agree with the vision and the goals of the plan.
2. The plan needs to include a general vision for the future of
the community. Equally important is neighborhood or area planning
to address any unique conditions or the specific concerns of
citizens in these districts. While citizens may initially reject
the idea of growth, they may be more accepting of new development
if they are offered an opportunity to express their ideas and
opinions on its location, its "look", etc.
3. Whether by design or by default, planners consistently
discover the value in relinquishing professional authority for the
planning process in favor of a partnership among stakeholders.
This includes local residents, businesses and property owners, as
well as other government agencies, e.g., public works, schools,
and transportation. Everyone -- including local nonprofits and
developers -- has a role to play in decisions about a community's
future.
4. Good planning translates into better government operations
overall, since agencies who must implement the plan have
participated in its development, and are part of an organization
that values citizen input in decision making.
5. Planning in a partnership takes time, but planning without
this partnership often takes longer, since the plan is not the
product of consensus. Backtracking and responding to citizen
complaints can take time away from an urgently needed plan or
growth management program, but the trade-off may be a planning
process that is more responsive to community needs and a plan
product that is more acceptable and easier to implement.
CASE EXAMPLES
The table below provides a list of the cases on the
"Partnerships and Participation in Planning" site and indicates
which tools or techniques were used in each case. Links are
provided so you can learn about the individual cases, or return to
the "Tools and Practices" section to review some background
information on a specific tool.
Each case example includes the following:
 |
a description of the problem
or issue |
|
information on its history
and development |
|
an outline of the process
used to identify stakeholders and involve
them in
problem solving or policy
making |
|
an inventory of the results,
including the lessons learned (both
positive and
negative) |
|
contact information (if
permission has been granted by the case author). |