Zoning Versus Planning

The City of Las Cruces election is described on Heath Haussamen.   He characterizes the outcome as a growth vote, more or less. 

(...) There were strong signs that a growing number of Las Cruces residents weren’t on board with the vision shared by Mattiace, Frietze and others. They believe the city’s growth is either too fast or happening without rules to ensure adequate infrastructure and services are being provided. They don’t like the idea of paying a tax for a spaceport when infrastructure in their neighborhood is lacking. Most important, they feel left out of the process. One of the main issues in the Las Cruces municipal election was the difference between public input and public involvement.

Well put.    Then this comment got my attention: 

...What is the difference between public input and public involvement? Aren't there citizens (public)appointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the land use cases? .... There are numerous land use cases every month that no one seems to care about, and they have no problem letting the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council act on them. That's what those folks are appointed/elected to do. Ultimately, the decision is up to them. Problem is, it's a slippery slope. There are such things as property rights, and the Council must be careful not to start arbitrarily denying land use requests or they will end up in a lawsuit, which does nothing to help anyone.

I also think that people have a responsibility to find out for themselves what's going on. Short of sending someone to knock on every door of every citizen in the City to inform them that there is a land use case before the City Council, there is no way for the City to "get the word out" in a manner acceptable to everyone. All this information is readily available to anyone who bothers to inquire. Civic responsibility instead of laziness, anyone?

If I had written it I would have mentioned planning about 60 times.  Nobody mentions it once.   
Here's the deal:   Property rights and allowing owners to do whatever they want with land can be hard on land.  Ask any coal town.  It is also very hard on community planning for growth.  We're told that holding individual property rights over government land use regulation will protect property.  But fights about growth are most always about private development initiatives.  The local government zoning board is often representative of the community - siding with the neighborhood in recommending denials of site plans or zone changes.*

But you can't plan for growth case-by-case.  The public input and public involvement has to come at a big-picture level.  Otherwise you have every single neighborhood association attempting to to exert veto or approval power over every single development with no one effectively speaking up for land outside town - which is, in fact, a lot like where we're at now. 

You need communities, and community representatives in local government, to continuously develop and maintain comprehensive regional and area plans.  And not just land use plans.   The plans have to anticipate needed infrastructure financing, aka capital improvements.  That's the way the Legislature and Congress know what to fund besides their pet projects. Otherwise its all pet projects. 

Dream world?   Sure.  Fraught with the peril of a representative government attempting to effectively manage the tax base and shared regional resources.  Community building, like any other kind of building, requires a sound plan.  A big view.  A regional vision.  Not just No Wal-Mart There. No regional vision ever arose from an individual zone change.

*Governments never deny subdivision platting requests - a more obscure development action. 

Comments

[scot]

Thanks Coco. I'm reading and learning here about planning, and keeping my eyes from glazing over because I know it's the glazed eye reaction that has helped get us where we are. And where we are ain't good. Now Oregon, hmmmmm Oregon. Aw, it's too cloudy too often west of the Cascades, anyway.