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:
