|
Back
If
Budget Were no Problem, What Would be the Area in Which
You Would Focus Attention and Improvements?
By Kim Kilkenny
January 26, 2004
Part
I: Substance:
A couple years ago, I prepared a quick and dirty policy
talking paper addressing San Diego’s urban form,
and related issues including facility financing, affordable
housing, open space and facility deficiencies. The attached
two draft documents were prepared to try to establish
a set of principles defining Smart Planning (a term
I prefer to Smart Growth). Once agreed upon, the principles
can guide the evaluation of various land planning, facility
planning and funding programs currently under consideration
throughout the region. The two documents are (1) a “Policy
Analysis” and a (2) “Smart Planning Principles
Matrix”.
The purpose of the matrix was to compare and contrast
the Smart Planning principles endorsed by various local
and national organizations. By examining what other
entities are doing we will be better prepared to move
forward with greater confidence that the principles
that we are considering are “in the ball park”
relative to the national dialogue on this topic. Examining
the thoughts of others can also provide inspiration
for our own debates.
The Policy Analysis (pages 3 – 13) follows classic,
albeit simplified, steps typically employed to analyze
and influence public policy. Those steps are: understand
the historical context of the policy; identify and agree
on the facts; define the problems to be addressed; and
establish the principles by which solutions should be
fashioned to respond to those problems. The analysis
is still very much a draft document with some incomplete
thoughts and placeholders awaiting input from others
and completed research by me.
There is nothing new or brilliant about the drafts.
Their conclusions, a set of principles, are mom and
apple pie. But, that is the point. Collectively, we
must first understand the facts, define the problems
and agree (or not) on principles before we can begin
to agree on programs or implementation measures. Absent
principles, our programmatic discussions will be circular
and inconclusive. If we don’t agree on the problem,
we will never agree on the solution. We will be ineffective
players in the public policy debates. The fact that
Smart Planning principles appear rather self-evident
is, in itself, significant. It means that there is an
emerging consensus on some very fundamental growth,
environmental and fiscal policy questions. After 35
years of growth wars this can be a big deal, if we translate
consensus into action.
So as not to be too obtuse, we think the emerging consensus
is: we must protect the sensitive resources on the urban
fringe; accommodate the demand for housing and jobs
by building more efficiently (more dense) in existing
communities; use broad based taxes (perhaps new or increased)
to pay to remedy existing facility deficiencies; and
design our built environment and public spaces to increase
our quality of life and mobility choices. Five key themes
are:
¨ Environment;
¨ Density;
¨ Taxes;
¨ Facilities; and
¨ Design.
These are very different themes than those we lived
by for the last four decades.
Needless to say, I welcome all comments, corrections,
additions, subtractions etc. This was compiled very
quickly, in between the demands my real jobs.
Part
II Process:
If the goal of a Civic Group is to affect change, then
by definition, an objective of the group must be to
influence public policy. If an objective is to influence
public policy, then understanding and controlling the
process of influencing public policy is critical. It
is of no value to agree on substantive programs if the
substance is not accompanied by a strategy to enact
and implement the programs. Programs + process = policy.
This is where many well meaning people and organizations
go astray.
Frequently, civic groups believe that the political
leadership will do the right thing if they are just
presented with the facts, unbiased data, proven scientific
conclusions; or if they are given a clear consensus
in support of the correct public policy option. This
is seldom the case, for several reasons. First and foremost
inspite of our sense of self worth and the purityof
our motivation< no one is the keeper of the truth>
Facts are rarely absolute, data is rarely unbiased,
and expert’s conclusions generally reflect the
expert’s values or assumptions which are seldom
neutral. Plus, facts have no staying power.
Rather public policy is “making sausage”,
or as stated in academic circles – “the science
of muddling through”. This is a good thing; it
reflects the democratic principles underlying our public
institutions. Democracy was never intended to be efficient
or rationale. To the contrary it is remarkably inefficient,
irrational, unfair and arbitrary.
The public process responds to a multitude of factors,
some of which are based upon a good faith effort to
reflect the common interest, but most others represent
naked or veiled self interest. Any group that seeks
to be successful in the forum of public opinion must
be prepared to complete with and against this cacophony
of conflicting interests. The public policy race does
not go those with the noblest motives, but rather to
those with the loudest, most persistent and most focused
voice speaking either the simplest or most complex message.
Other times the race merely goes to the most powerful.
Simply stated public policy is shaped by three broad
elements – knowledge, influence and power. The
interest group that best controls all three elements
is most likely to prevail.
KNOWLEDGE is the ability to master the information surrounding
a question of public policy. Knowledge is fact based.
Knowledge is rational.
INFLUENCE is the ability to communicate reasons to support
or oppose certain policy options. Influence is persuasive.
Influence is emotive.
POWER is the ability to coerce public policy outcomes
through intimidation or enticement. Power is politics.
Power is coercive.
Thus, if this group is serious about shaping public
policy for an extended period of time, a willingness
to master these three elements must be considered. In
other words it has to be more than a good government
group, it has to pursue a communication and coalition-building
strategy and be politically engaged.
Why? Common interest public policy doesn’t just
happen. To the contrary if events are permitted to take
their course, special interests will continue to prevail.
The course of events will change only if broad-based
interests make it politically safe for political leadership
to enact the common interest decision.
Back
|
