Local planners, and all planning is local, are mired in politics, and you guessed it, local politics. It's particularly sticky because the underlying assumption of all political power in the country is that in a democracy, every decision affecting the public by the powers of government, would be democratic. In our locality, the public body opposes all development, an expression within their democratic right. If one uses the health care analogy that, say, public opposition to certain health care practices are guaranteed by democratic principle, one begins to appreciate the current hysteria over the health care legis. But when involving the health of our communities, there is less leadership. However impractical and ill-advised the proposition that decisions affecting the health and welfare of an individual go public, another standard seems to apply to decisions affecting the built environment. Leadership balks at taking a forceful public position on how to develop. Local folks get to speak in public and influence outcomes. Here, near Washington D.C., it is a noisy opposition to everything, and the developers win or lose in varying degrees. Interestingly, in Southern Maryland, where leadership listens to the public outcry, economic development has been less successful, compared to neighboring Northern Virginia, for example. The differences are visible, palpable, it's widely recognized, and seems to be the indirect outcome of democracy working, to the detriment of economic well being in one locality, and to the success in the other. Personally, I would submit that health and welfare is complicated, whether for the person or the public, and ultimately, a matter for leadership and not for referendum.
-------------------------------------------
Allen Neyman AIA
Component past president
NSArchitects
Rockville MD
-------------------------------------------