It is late and I am tired and I don’t have time or ideas for a lengthy post, so I am just going to vent over one of my pet peeves: how planners say they want public involvement and then through obstacles in the way of members of the public who want to get involved.
Today the plan I am concerned with is for the “central corridor,” a proposed light-rail line from Minneapolis to St. Paul. The Twin Cities Metropolitan Council published a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for this proposal last year.
The first thing I notice is that the downloadable files are nearly 70 megabytes in size — and that doesn’t include the appendices, which are another 24 megabytes. This is a complete barrier for anyone with a dial-up connection, and can even be a problem for those with some so-called high-speed connections. The Adobe software for making PDFs has options that allow for smaller files by using lower resolutions for graphics, but all-wise urban planners have apparently never heard of those options.
This type of problem should not be taken lightly. best price for cialis If you find yourself in trouble after the intake of Kamagra Oral Jelly are: * Head pain * Stomach ache * Digestive issue * Facial flushing * Vomiting * Nausea * Acute octal abnormalitiesRare serious side effects occur after the intakes of Kamagra Oral Jelly are:* Increased rate of heart order viagra beats* Mild to Painful Rashes* Difficulty in breathing* Blurred Vision Benefits: * The drug actually increases libido, improves sexual performance. Gallbladder is the reservoir that can increase to keep the peace, some teachers have taken measures to remove the religious element levitra properien from yoga curriculums in schools by eliminating the Sanskrit language, prayer poses, chanting and any movements that tie religion to these classes. The mention of his name creates very warm memories of his wisecracks, throwing tantrums at his mother and royally ignoring neighbor Susie along with his deep love for his stuffed toy buy levitra without rx tiger – Hobbes. On the other hand, if you have a really fast connection, it would be nice to download the files with one click; but instead, there are more than 20 different files to download. Some web sites offer one-click downloading as an option, but not the Metropolitan Council.
Once the PDFs are downloaded, they are not searchable. Instead of making PDFs (which are really just text files with graphics), they turned every page into a graphic. This not only makes the files bigger, it makes it difficult to do any research with the EIS.
I don’t know about those Windows machines, but on a Macintosh, you have to go out of your way to make PDFs that are not searchable. Why would they do that if they were genuinely interested in involving the public? Of course, they are not even remotely interested in public involvement (except for those members of the public willing to be their cheerleaders), but they could at least make a pretense of it instead of going out of their way to create barriers.
Finally, I read some of the EIS for this project, and it is a real turkey. For example, I wanted to know if they said anything about the light rail saving energy or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They apparently never considered greenhouse gases (so much for comprehensive planning), but page 4-56 of the EIS admits that the light-rail line will consume almost twice as much energy as all the motor vehicles — both autos and buses — it takes off the road.
Nevertheless, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Met Council is promoting this line on the grounds that it will save energy. And since few people will bother to download a 70-MB environmental impact statement, and those who do won’t easily be able to find anything in it anyway, hardly anyone will know the truth.
The Adobe software for making PDFs has options that allow for smaller files by using lower resolutions for graphics, but all-wise urban planners have apparently never heard of those options.
I call BS.
I have heard of these options.
When I export from InDesign or PhotoShop, I choose lower-resolution options when possible. When I export from ArcMap, I choose the dpi resolution and tailor that to the client. Nonetheless, the IT folks who loaded this to the website should have ensured the docs were made from ‘create .pdf’ instead of scanned. And I like it that you have to imply that it is one 70 MB doc, rather than a separate file for each chapter (standard). 70 MB is pretty good anyway.
But I like it that the best you can do, Randal, is painting with a broad brush – the hasty generalization or inappopriate generalization* fallacious argument.
At least you’ve changed from your recent pattern of argument from repetition of simple cause. Oh, wait – yesterday it was the false analogy fallacy. But still.
DS
*http://tinyurl.com/385wn6
The Metropolitan Council should really be teed off at whoever they hired to digitize that report. I’m sure the MC wouldn’t knowingly create an electronic document that not only defeats all linking and search functions, but also violates federal EPA regulations for acceptable e-filings.
Too bad the MC members didn’t think to check with their own State’s DOT; it just published an EIS that allows cross-file searches and linking. If it really is a problem for them, my secretary can take 15 minutes to explain how it’s done. No need for thanks.
Of course, considering the findings in chap. 7, the MC might wish to publish the report in Sanskrit.
i’d say the main barrier to participatory planning is that people are disinterested in engaging in planning events. many people want to spend their free time with family, friends, or just watching tv. unless you are an activist or planner, it seems that there’s is a million other things one would prefer to spend there time on. the complexity of the issues involved are also a deterrent. people also dont usually realize how it may affect them (although the stakeholders most affected usually are contacted). if the track record for voting is as poor as it is (its not too good over here in canada either), which at its most basic level only requires you to register to vote and then check off the candidate you support. spending dozens of hours on planning issues is certaintly a lot less interesting for someone unless they can clearly see a possible (negative) way they might be impacted.
I understand this sentiment completely and do my best in my job as a public sector planner to ensure public participation is accessible and uncomplicated.
I feel bad feeling that I have to put any kind of disclaimer on the following statement, but: I do not mean the following statement to have any kind of facetious implications and am genuinely writing what I mean. That being said:
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, or whatever, if anything, you choose to celebrate this time of year, Randal! I hope you’re able to find time to rest this next week and come back refreshed and ready for more debate.
From my own experience I can say planners do not want public involvement but make a show of public involvement in order to comply with legal requirements. This is especially true with transportation planning. I believe it started with the original ISTEA legislation that required all project receiving federal dollars to include public input/involvement.
What in fact takes place is a highly controlled dog and pony show meant to fulfill that requirement rather than allow real input. When it comes to critical input or competing ideas the communication channels are closed. Planners in these meetings are selling their ideas to the public rather than seeking input.
I see the same thing with local planning decisions and even statewide decisions. The public is viewed as a nuisance rather than a constituency to be served.
On December 20th, 2007, theplanner said:
i’d say the main barrier to participatory planning is that people are disinterested in engaging in planning events…
This is entirely correct. It’s a natural byproduct of government’s ability to concentrate benefits and disperse costs. The expense to each individual of any particular political action is so small, it’s not worth fighting.
It is quite easy to have a lot of public participation in the planning process. Announce a meeting to discuss putting a new freeway, house for sex offenders, asphalt plant, or airport in a neighborhood and there will be a large turnout of interested citizens.
On the other hand, last month I was a presenter at an open house for transport corridor plans for Clark County, WA, and fewer than a dozen people looked at my display and videos.
Some of my neighbors and I participated in a several-year planning process for development of our neighborhood when it is brought inside the urban growth boundary. The county commissioners just decided that we are in at the start of 2008 and it looks as though all our planning efforts were ignored.
I will say that when it comes to DEIS and FEIS publications, I know for a fact that a certain transit agency in a large (nominally) unzoned City in the southern United States forgot to add some very important information to their documentation – such as that around train stations that there would be a 1,500 foot radius condemnation zone around the stations where the transit agency would be able to acquire property for urban redevelopment that is supportive of transit. Funny, but the same agency, its rail supporters, and our newspaper of note here all somehow forgot to mention that small item into the public debate despite having spent millions in advertising the positive aspects of the plan when it was being voted on, and in the EIS documentation later. Now thousands of acres of prime real estate in said unzoned southern United States city will have a zoning overlay as a feature of its urban landscape.
This has all come as news to not a few people who thought of themselves as being safe from not finding themselves in the headlights of a train. NOOOOOOO! They now find themselves having to fend off offers for their property when all they were told they were voting for was for rail which would come by their homes and enhance the value of their property. Surprise, surprise.
Be careful of what you wish for. You just might get it – all of it.
Neal, that very thing you describe has happened across all societies, everywhere, since the start of the agrarian age. You have just identified a key element of the human condition.
And Tad has identified another element: without galvanization, motivation and organization, folks don’t gather and move together in a common direction. Rhetoric was held in highest esteem in Aristotle’s time, as our elders knew this then. Madison Avenue and K St exists today because of this fact.
DS
I have been told by Portland planners that my opinion doesn’t matter because I didn’t agree with the planners and their plans for my neighborhood. This was at planning outreach open house. So it didn’t take long for the residents on my side to just stay home after a few well attended meeting. Why should they go to a meeting that they were not allowed to have any input in .
I have noticed many old time residents voting with their feet and moving.
We all know Portland is the model to follow for planning
I have been told by Portland planners that my opinion doesn’t matter because I didn’t agree with the planners and their plans for my neighborhood.
I would put a lot of money on a wager that the italicized _implicit dialogue_ above isn’t close to verbatim, for several possible reasons, but may be in the same zip code with respect to the actual _explicit situation_ on the ground.
So lets take this path, which is most likely: in my experience, when I see reactions like this, the reactor was told by the planners the majority felt like x, opposite of the reactor, who felt like y; therefore, what x wants is going to happen, not y. Well, heck, nobody likes hearing that their wishes are not what others want, and that creates a perfectly natural reaction in the reactor’s mind, causing a misremembering of the incident.
For example: reactor says something like “I don’t want any more parks in my neighborhood because I always step on dog poop when I visit them.” The planner says, “Well, planning staff seeks more parks because of the overwhelming requests received in this neighborhood for more parks. We are here to gauge design ideas, not whether there will be a park or not, because we are going to put in a park. Your opinion is noted, but it is certainly not what we’ve been hearing. No, sir, we are seeking input on preferred design, not yes or no on a park. Far more people are asking us for parks than not, so we’re sorry but there’s going to be a park on Broadway and 45th. That is why you see presentation boards with dots seeking preferred design ideas, not dots asking yes or no on a park or no park. Sure, we’ll certainly take down your input that you don’t want a park. Will your input stop the park going in? No, sir.”
The reactor hears in his mind: “your opinion doesn’t matter because you don’t agree our plans for your neighborhood.”, not “thank you very much for your input, sir, but far more people want a park than don’t want one, so we’re putting in a park.” That’s a normal human reaction. We do it visually, too, which is why eyewitness testimonies to, say, an accident vary widely, or why so many couples disagree on details (and why all of us laugh at these cute little vignettes when we…um…witness them).
HTH.
DS
Nice try Dan
It was early in the planning of my neighborhood and in a one on one conversation. I was told My side could not have a seat at the table because we did not agree with what the planners wanted for my neighborhood.
The open meetings went from allowing the public to interject comments and questions during the presentations to comments and question only allow at the end of the meeting when most of the public had gone home.
Early on we noticed that our input seemed to disappear from minutes and any summery of neighborhood input reports.
Plannuing Portland style
Several years ago, when the City of Florence was updating its Comprehensive Plan, there was tremendous community involvement — once it became clear that proposed shopping opportunities (an outlet mall; Fred Meyer) would not be allowed.
Hundreds of people came to some meetings to let the “facilitators” (hired by the state to tell us what our vision was) that the people of the Florence area had a more proactive vision. They expressed this through not only participation at public meetings, but through public votes, surveys, letters to the editor, and petitions. In the end, the views of the large majority of people made no difference. DLCD and the governor’s office forced the city to make its comp plan conform to THEIR vision for Florence — a small village concept with little growth. Certainly no room for the big-box stores that area citizens travel long distances to and the commercial/industrial activities that make life more pleasant and convenient.
After that, what a surprise: attendance at community planning meetings plummeted. Then, the state used the lack of attendance at meetings to impose new restrictions. When the state lets it be know that peoples’ opinions aren’t valued, people get smart and stop offering them.
Dear DS –
So that’s what happened when Portland was asked about expanding light rail, we voted no and government/planners found a way to fund and install it anyway. Just like we voted that marriage be ONLY between one man and one woman, we didn’t want gay marriage – so government turned around and passed a law for ‘civil unions’ that carry the same rights and privileges of marriage. Yeah, we have very little confidence that government and (by extension) planners can be trusted and have the public’s true interests in mind.
The Metropolitan Council is very interested in public involvement and input into the Central Corridor LRT project. In fact, when the Met Council became the lead agency for the project in late 2006, one of the first things it did after completing the initial application to the Federal Transit Administration, was hire a manager of public involvement and prepare a communication and public involvement strategic plan. Since then, we have expanded our outreach efforts by hiring a team of 6 community outreach coordinators. You can read about them and a sampling their activities online at: http://www.metrocouncil.org/directions/transit/transit2007/CCOutreachStaff.htm
As one of many avenues for providing information and engaging the public, we continue to build and update our website. We list upcoming public meetings, include agendas and minutes from the Community Advisory Committee and the Business Advisory Council meetings, and post recent reports. I agree that a 70 megabyte file is too large to expect the public to download. That’s why Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority (RCRRA), the agency responsible for preparing the document prior to 2006, broke it down by chapter; to make it more accessible. I’ll look into ways of compressing the files. We also have paper copies of the DEIS and other documents available for public review in the Met Council’s library at 390 N. Robert Street, St. Paul and the Central Corridor Project Office at 540 Fairview Avenue N., St. Paul.
We are now in the phase of the project called preliminary engineering (PE). As you go through PE, we will be updating the environmental studies and completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement. These and other reports will be added to our website as they become available. We will continue to be conscience of the size and format of the files when we post them to our website.
I attended one of the public meetings for this project. The process was structured such that the interaction was entirely one-way — before the public hearing, planners stood next to maps of the proposed corridor to ‘inform’ the public. Once the meeting began, the Met Council gave their power point presentation, after which the public comment section commenced.
I would say the group was about 2/3 in favor, 1/3 opposed. Of course, the speakers represented none but the staunchest advocates and the most stridently opposed. The former were the usual cast of characters: local politicians, environmental and pro-transit groups, the University of Minnesota and local chambers of commerce from the Midway area of St. Paul. The latter were primarily landowners likely to be impacted by construction.
The most notable thing about this project is that it has stirred up opposition from the Rondo neighborhood, a St. Paul neighborhood that was destroyed about 50 years ago when I-94 was built between the CBDs. Local residents are understandably concerned about their neighborhood being gentrified and them being displaced — this is apparently OK with the two cities.
The public involvement process is a sham and serves only to legitimate the planners’ goal of pursuing light rail in the Central Corridor at all costs. This is readily apparent to anyone who spends some time leafing through the environmental review and alternatives analysis documents. There are no real ‘alternatives’.