An unfortunate perspective regarding the relationship between existing local government policies and development opportunities involves the attitude we all have toward policies and plans. Some believe that community plans, zoning schedules, or other policies should be seen as the “bible” and that no development should be allowed that is not in full alignment with those plans or policies.
In my experience, this perspective is often predicated on a number of beliefs including:
- The opinions of existing owners in a neighbourhood are the most important for the success of the community long term;
- Existing residents have full or sufficient knowledge of all issues that might be important related to their community both now and in the future – and therefore education of the community on issues is of very low importance before decisions are made;
- Whatever planning process was used to create a plan in the past was the right one and therefore the same or a similar process will necessarily always achieve the best and most complete result;
- New development more often than not will destroy value in the existing community through the change it brings and therefore a plan that avoids change is often the best outcome;
- The community is generally always “right” and should be all powerful over its jurisdiction and since its plans are necessarily right, that any deviation from a plan or policy is most likely a private interest endeavouring to make a profit from damaging a public interest.
In reality, plans or policies more typically have the following characteristics:
- They are artifacts of the time and process which created them and are generally based on the past than the future;
- They are completed with limited resources and in many cases, an interestingly low level of actual community engagement regardless of the process offered;
- Due to the fact that the types of consultation typically used are time consuming, the types of people who contribute to the plan in any serious level are generally of a small group with few family or business demands on their time – ironically often those with the lowest need for economic development;
- The plans rarely include much market or economic analysis of implications of options;
- The planning process rarely explores in any depth a range of scenarios for change in the economy or market;
- There is limited accountability in the process to ensure that public comments or accusations are truthful – and there is generally complete impunity for any malice or falsehoods spread around by any community member;
- Those who drive most of the plan making process unfortunately often have little education or experience in the complexity and fragility of the development market and industry realities the plans impact; and
- The financial implications of the plans are rarely examined in depth due to limited resources.
In this context, a wise perspective on existing community plans and polices is:
- They have credibility because of the time and resources invested in them;
- They are important governance tools and a respect for what they embody should be a starting point for development discussions;
- They embody the dreams and preferences of some of the community – but not all;
- The process to change any plan should be respectful of due process but not necessarily be subject to the same process that created the plan in the first place (same process risks same outcome);
- Since the health of any community is predicated fundamentally on a prosperous economy, the starting point for refinements to plans should be done from a foundation of encouraging and supporting responsible economic development; and
- Changes to any plan or policy should be entertained at any time – no plan or policy is sacrosanct.