MARCH 25- 26TH: BALANGBA OR ZOOM FEST?

KAYJATTA

The Gambia is poised for its version of the Tunisian-style "Jasmine Revolution" that emerged in Tunisia knocking down or severely shaking up long-time dictators in North African Middle East-Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria; and threatening monarchs in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Jordan.
Following the violent uprisings in the Arab world, many proponents of democracy in Black Africa have called for similar uprisings in their various countries that are under the deadly grip of perennial tyrants.
The Gambia seems to be one of such countries. Since the junior-officer coup of 1994, the Gambia has been painfully struggling under the oppressive regime of Chairman Jammeh.
The popular uprisings in the Arab world and the overnight fall of strongmen like Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Ben Ali of Tunisia, and the slow but certain fall and capture of Moamar Qaddaff-who until now has been referred to as the "King of African Kings"- served as a rude awakening for all the other dictators in Africa and the Arabian penninsula.
Some dictators, in anticipation of revolts, have taken pre-emptive steps to appease their populations by offering political and economic reforms. Jordan, Bahrain, and the intransigent Saudi Arabia have all offered economic and political concessions.
Similarly, the Gambia's president, Chairman Jammeh who has now metamorphosed into a "Sheikh Professor Doctor Alhagie Yahya A.J.J Jammeh Nasirul Deem"; apparently scared of his own fate has quickly appointed a press secretary (Fatou Camara-a professional journalist) and called a friendly consultation with his long-time enemyl, the press. In that consultative meeting with the press, Jammeh promised reforms but insisted he will not compromise national security. President Jammeh also insisted that he wasn't "moved by the revolts in Libya", grudgingly  referring to the wave of anti-dictatorship uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East. Jammeh, a student of Qaddaffi and J.J. Rawlings is obviously worried and dis-illusioned (as revealed by his body language and mannerisms) after witnessing the disgraceful fall of his masters and their revolutionary ideologies.
I have to say that ,after listening to Jammeh's concerns (about press freedom and democracy), he is subsumed in fear and lack of proper guidance. The best way to ensure national security is thorugh democracy and freedoms; the president needs to understand that. When  people have a legitimate peaceful avenue to express themselves and be heard, they are not likely to resort to violent means of voicing their concerns. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, etc all have stifled legitimate means of political expression for decades.
Also the president needs to understand the dichotomy between "Jammeh-the-person" and "Jammeh-the-president". As president, he is a public servant and therefore must surrender some of his individual rights. Libel and sedition do not apply to public officials, unless "actual malice" is proven. Jammeh must not take criticism personally. The criticisms he is often so upset about are not about him as a person; they are about the presidency.
I would also like to mention that Jammeh's attack on the West again is his usual excuse for his routine clamp down on freedoms in the Gambia. His allegation that " people go to jail in America for denying the holocaust" is false and lacking evidence.
In his essay, The Leviathan, Hobbs depicts a ruler- a benevolent dictator who would throw biscuits to hungry children by day, but murder his opponents in cold blood by night. But that was only Hobbs argument against Rousseau's "state of nature" where "man was born free" and now "everywhere he is in chains".
Freedom in the Gambia is not likely to come from Jammeh. By political design, the executive is not often the protector of freedoms. Freedom hinders the operation of many executive branches. Freedom in the Gambia has to come from the courts. That is the story of the United States. That is the story of many great democracies. This however will not happen in the Gambia unless the courts start applying the concept of judicial review and assert their independence from the executive.
The past weeks, since the announcement of the date for "Balangba"(a popular uprising in the Gambia), President Jammeh has apart from reaching out to the media, sponsored over a million dalasis "Quranic memorization" contest, personally sponsored two patients for overseas treatment, and announced tens of millions of dollars of job-creation projects. Now the "Zoom Festival" is announced in the Gambia, scheduled for the  March 25th just a day before the mass protests planned to oust the President from office. It looks like the "Zoom Fest", which will feature local and international music stars, will kill or seriously derail "Balangba".
The Gambians, like many oppressed people, will likely prefer to party than to protest.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING: THE POLITICS OF TRANSIT IN LOS ANGELES

KayJatta

March 23, 2011

THE PROBLEMS OF TRANSPORTATION IN LOS ANGELES

The problems of transportation in Los Angeles (LA) were not uniquely characteristic of that city. Air pollution and traffic congestion are generally ongoing concerns for many metro regions in the United States.  Many cities attempted a change to transit in order to ease these problems.

However, the dilemma facing many cities, particularly Los Angeles is how to simultaneously lure suburban commuters out of their cars (by developing rapid transit system to the suburbs) and improve inner-city transportation.

Transit makes sense for Los Angeles because of the following factors:

·         88% drives to work by 1990 compared to 79% for Chicago and 63% for New York.

·         The use of transit is still low in Los Angeles. The flow of work-bound traffic in Los Angeles was only 24% in 1980, compared to 74% for Chicago and 60% for New York.

·         There was no clear evidence in Los Angeles that transit disproportionately benefit the White majority than minorities.

·         Los Angeles is more diverse than many comparative cities, but it was highly segregated racially and ethnically.

·         Jobs and activity centers are widely spread out in Los Angeles. There are at least 28 district sub-centers (satellites) outside the Central Business District (CBO).

However, despite the above mentioned factors, Los Angeles still has to grapple with the questions of whether transit should aim at getting people out of their cars or whether it should aim at serving people with fewer transportation choices. These two choices appeared to represent “a clash of civilizations” to borrow a phrase (although less fitting in this case) from the celebrated political scientist, Samuel Huntington. In 1994, a grassroots movement in Los Angeles that called itself the “Bus Riders Union” (BRU) filed a civil rights lawsuit after an expensive rail transit system to the suburbs was built in Los Angeles. The purpose of the lawsuit was to force the policymakers of the city of Los Angeles to meet the needs of the poor minority bus riders in the inner city.

According to Burrington and Heart (1998) in Joe Grengs (2002), this was the first successful challenge to transit agency decisions on the basis of civil rights and discrimination. The outcome of the lawsuit, described as one of the biggest civil rights actions includes these two:

·         Improved inner city bus services

·         Gave formal role to Bus Riders Union (BRU) in planning process

It is important to note that similar lawsuits in Philadelphia (1990) and New York (1995) failed woefully for reasons I will discuss in a later chapter.

CONTROVERSIAL SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS OF TRANSPORTAION IN LOS ANGELES

In 1980, voters in Los Angeles approved a ballot measure (Proposition 8) for a new subway and rail system. This appeared to be an elite move aimed at appeasing suburban elite interests involving up to 25% of revenue devolved to local governments. The result is several urban rail lines including these:

·         The Blue Line (1990) connecting Long Beach to the Central Business District (CBO).

·         The Red Line (1993), an urban underground system including a downtown subway segment.

·         The Green Line (1995) running an east to west direction from Norwalk to Redondo Beach and the Los Angeles International Airport.

·         The Metro link which is a suburban commuter rail.

For all of these, as mentioned above, low income advocate bus riders received only a three-year reduction in bus fares. That sounds like a short end of the deal, right?

Los Angeles’ choice of rail as a solution to its transportation problems was not especially unique to the city. However, rail is a controversial choice. The critics of rail argue that:

·         It is very expensive. In Los Angeles, it was $6 billion in capital costs and $7 billion in debt.

·         Inappropriate for Los Angeles’ diverse economic activities

·         Does not attract enough riders

·         Would not reduce the twin urban evils of pollution and congestion

·         Takes away funds from a more cost-effective bus system

·         A mere political show that serves none other than the business people and their cronies (the growth machine).

·         Buses use existing infrastructure

·         Buses have higher ridership

·         Buses serve high-need populations

Proponents of rail however maintain that rail provides the following benefits:

·         Rail is a nationwide trend

·         An opportunity to use federal dollars

·         Reduction of pollution and congestion

·         Saves energy

·         Reduces urban sprawl

PLANNING THEORY

Transportation in Los Angeles could be analyzed in the light of several planning theories, such as consensus, advocacy, communicative action theory and critical theory.

Joe Grengs (2002) identified three factors (two internal and one external) in the political process model that every social movement comprises of. They are:

·         Political opportunities (external)

·         Organizational strength (internal)

·         Leadership and strategy (internal)

Although the opening of political opportunities represents the most important factor, the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union has been roundly praised for its organizational strength. The strong internal organization in the BRU around a common overriding issue (consensus building) was a major reason for its success. The lack of this internal consensus is perhaps the reason for failure elsewhere in New York (1995) and Philadelphia (1990) for example.

In the opening chapter to his article “Community-based Planning as a Source of Political Change”, Joe Grengs, a doctoral candidate at Cornell University argued that “if planners do not…take action in political settings, they risk failing to make constructive change” (pg. 165).

The Los Angeles Bus Riders Union, by every right is an advocacy group. It represents a particular interest group and actively lobbied, protested, and filed lawsuits (Paul Davidoff’s legalistic model) on their behalf. BRU effectively utilized a proactive participatory procedure that combines planning and political process to achieve a desired goal for the public good; Davidoff, P (1965).

The Bus Riders Union also relied on communicative action to argue for the implementation of their alternative plan for resolving the transportation problems in Los Angeles; Forrester, J (1980). They did not only critique the rail transit system but they also laid down the advantages of better bus service in the inner city. They even succeeded in qualifying mass transportation as a human rights issue in Los Angeles. The fact that the Bus Riders Union provided an alternative transportation plan against the rail transit plan of the city planners, it appears to be consistent with the pluralistic planning concept.

The BRU’s argument also bordered on questions of justice and equality. The Union successfully defined the controversy in terms of civil rights, perhaps drawing inspiration from both communicative (critical) planning and equity planning theories as proposed by Jorgen Herbamass and others.

REFERENCE:

1.       Community-based Planning as a Source of Political Change, Grengs, J. (2002)

2.       Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning; Davidoff, P. (1965)

3.       Critical Theory in Planning; Forrester, J. (1980)

4.       Ethical Frameworks and Planning Theory; Campbell, H et al (1999)

5.       Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of Comprehensive Planning; Innes, J.E. (1996)

THE KANSAS CITY MAYORAL DEBATE: Draft Notes

MARCH 08, 2010.

KAYJATTA (IN ATTENDANCE)

Debate Host: Kansas City Chamber of Commerce and the Kansas City Business Journal.

Debating Mayoral Candidates: Mike Burke (R) vs. Sly James (D)

Burke and James are two finalists from the primary elections, now face-to-face for the Kansas City mayor’s seat.

Each candidate was allowed three minutes (3 min) opening statement, three minutes (3 min) closing statements, and ninety seconds (90 sec) to answer questions.

Opening statements:

Sly James:

-          Four-year agenda-to attack the challenges facing KC systematically

-          No silver bullet- we must work together

-          Use human resources efficiently

-          Efficiency in government- education, law enforcement, safety, jobs

-          KC as one city-no North/South or East/West divides

Mike Burke:

-37 years leadership experience and results

-Has a vision of the future of KC

-attended law school

-wants to be mayor to be proud of

-wants to tell the KC story

Questions:

1.      How to fix the pension system imbalance of 32 million dollars ($86M compared to $54M budgeted).

Mike Burke:

-will apply multi-year budgeting

-will adopt the Blue Ribbon Panel’s recommendations

Sly James:

-Will listen to all stakeholders

-will have labor on the table

-will also have business on the table

-will adopt the Blue Ribbon panel’s report

2.      Retaining the E-Tax (Earnings tax)

Sly James:

-E-tax is the fairest tax

-it taxes people even if they do not live in KCMO but work and use services here

-it spread costs

-4,000 cities nationwide use E-tax, mostly higher than Kansas City’s 1%

Mike Burke:

-E-tax is a fair tax

-it goes to provide basic services

-half of the payers live outside KCMO

-It is fair to put E-Tax on the ballot

3.      What if it fails on the ballot, any alternatives?

Mike Burke:

-5-year requirement for vote is draconian

Sly James:

-hopes the E-Tax passes big

-will try to bring back “Citizens Commission on Municipal Revenue

-Will encourage participation

4.      Who inspires you?

Sly James:

-Father-not well educated but has a huge heart and loved community

-wife

-Children

Mike Burke:

-Father-a lawyer

-Three mayors here in attendance (includes K. Barnes)

5.      Polsinelli-Shugart Building controversy?

Mike Burke:

-Polsinelli jobs are needed here in KCMO

-will make sure building fits their needs but also saves the plaza

-will work with Highwoods but will protect the Plaza plan

Sly James:

-prefers not to take a side in the controversy

-will mediate to find amicable solution for both sides

-will try to save existing jobs on the plaza

6.      Accomplishments?

Sly James:

-New city manager

-Will avoid Wayne Cauthen situation and the two-year gridlock that followed

-Bring back Citizens commission on Municipal Revenue

-City workers with better morale

-Change and track new jobs

-cut bureaucratic tape

-adopt sustainable technology

-fill the KC of blank-tackle disparities

Mike Burke:

-KC recognized as a cultural center-attractive to young people

-will appoint city manager on day one-Troy Schulte

-bring jobs back to KC

-KC for young entrepreneurs

-strong connection between the mayor’s office and the arts community

-service attitude at City Hall-not a regulatory attitude

7.      How to stimulate distressed neighborhoods?

Sly James:

-will utilize mediation skill

-keep and follow up promises

-neighborhoods work with the city to reduce blight

-stimulate private investment

Mike Burke:

-acknowledged last 4 years was worst

-Change housing policy

-bulky items pickup will resume

-neighborhood alliance (advocacy) to interact with City Hall

8.      Transit?

Mike Burke:

-transit system that works for people to get to work

-buses

-anticipates crisis this summer when people won’t get to their jobs in Johnson County-gas prices

Sly James:

-commuter rail

-streetcars (18^th street)

-break down North/South and East/West divide

9.      Regional approach?

Mike Burke:

-tackle the urban core, downtown, and the Northland

-bring the city together

-3^rd district is devastation, he acknowledges

Sly James:

-will improve representation

-asked why Troost is a “demilitarized zone” and Stateline a “Berlin Wall”

10.  City and EDC?

Sly James:

-improves EDC‘s credibility

Mike Burke:

-credibility of EDC

11.  Police Board and police department?

Mike Burke:

-budget and local control

Sly James:

-budget and local control

12.  Closing statements:

Mike Burke:

-leadership

-experience

-knows what’s good and bad City Hall

-has record of accomplishments

-will be mayor to be proud of

-wants to see a sea of cranes instead of only one in KC-economic development

-KC as center for civic excellence

Sly James:

-describes himself as puzzle solver

-objective mediator-contrasts with Funkhouser years of gridlock

-promised to tackle KC as city of blank.

Kay's sidebar:
I drove in my wife's Dodge Stratus, in the light rainy afternoon, to the UMKC campus where I parked the car ( in anticipation of a parking nightmare) and hopped into a taxi to the Chamber of Commerce at the Union Station to attend the mayoral debate.

My driver to the venue was an Iranian and quickly we settled into a discussion about politics and the Gambia/Iran arms shipment impounded in Nigeria. My Iranian driver insisted that the illegal arm shipment could not have been by Iran, but a plot by Israel and America lol...

On my way back, I hopped into another taxi apparently driven by a Somali. As soon as I got in, he asked where I was from. I responed "Somalia", and he bursted into a hearty laughter. We didn't talk about the pirates though...

NEW ORLEANS: POST-DISASTER RECOVERY AND PLANNING.

NEW ORLEANS: POST-DISASTER RECOVERY PLANNING.

KAYJATTA

March 8, 2011

POST-DISASTER PLANNING IN NEW ORLEANS:

Following Hurricane Katrina in the fall of 2005, New Orleans became perhaps the most contested city in terms of planning theory and ideas. The post-Disaster New Orleans is a laboratory of various recovery planning ideas as embodied in the numerous official plans such as those by the following:

Ø  Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

Ø  City of New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA)

Ø  State of Louisiana (United New Orleans Plan- UNOP)

Ø Recovery and Planning Commission  (RPC)

Part of the reason for the proliferation of recovery planning ideas in the post-Disaster New Orleans is due to political failure. Therefore, individual communities and neighborhoods saw the need to take planning into their own hands. Several neighborhood plans emerged as a result of this; among them are the Mid-City Recovery Plan initiated by the Mid-City Neighborhood Organization and the Lafitte Greenway, initiated by the Friends of Lafitte Corridor (FOLC)-a citizen based advocacy group committed to converting the derelict Lafitte corridor into a trail and park system called a greenway. The Lafitte Corridor Greenway is expected to increase access to bike paths and walking trails. This improves neighborhood safety, especially for vulnerable groups such as women and children.

The participation of communities and neighborhoods in the planning and recovery of their own environments appear to indicate social and political empowerment. However, this has been accompanied by a privatization of planning to powerful private contractors who often undercut public participation and input.

Post-Disaster New Orleans has been a hot bed of social learning as knowledge from different sources-scientific, social, cultural,… are translated into action. The widespread and to some extent the exclusive use of digital media in planning and planning critique set (Post-Disaster recovery planning in ) New Orleans apart from all in the history of planning. The Unified Plan of New Orleans (UNOP) for example was highly influenced by interactive digital media. In its Community Congress I and II (2006), a public relations consulting firm, ‘America Speaks’ was alleged to have systematically engaged in distortion of information

RECOVERY AND REBUILDING:

While it might be true that “Brownie was doing a heck of a job”, New Orleans suffered a massive political failure from the onset of the disaster at both national and state levels.

The federal policy of temporary housing for example was both expensive and ineffective as it turned into a long-term housing project that trapped many ‘settlers’ in very deplorable conditions.

Recovery and rebuilding in New Orleans after the disaster was quite uneven due to the degree of disaster and how deep the area was submerged (flood depth). Therefore rebuilding and recovery was dependent on politics as well as geography.

Identifying and establishing homeownership (title) was problematic in many cases especially in minority neighborhoods where title deeds were often non-existent. This and issues of insurance as well as flood risk impeded recovery and rebuilding efforts in New Orleans.

PLANNING THEORY:

In his article “Digital Media and the Politics of Disaster Recovery in New Orleans”, Dr. Wagner argued that “the struggle to rebuild New Orleans was played out in the context of uncertainty, contested leadership and a highly politicized planning process”. This coupled with “problems of communication”, shifted the platform for planning onto the digital media.

Professor Wagner found out that recovery in New Orleans was characterized by “activism and unofficial planning led by citizens” in contrast to government-led planning in earlier cases.

While it is true that the use of digital media in planning may not result in increased democratization of planning, it certainly appears to increase individual and community participation. Digital Media, consistent with Dr. Wagner’s findings enhances planning critique, and thus facilitates pluralism and advocacy in planning as demanded by Paul Davidoff.

The contested field of planning in post-disaster New Orleans also witnessed the application of critical theory as laid out by John Forrester. The systematic manipulation and distortion of information to advance one’s position and interests was critical in the post-Katrina recovery efforts in New Orleans.

REFERENCES:

1.      Digital Media and the Politics of Disaster Recovery in New Orleans (Dr. Wagner, J  2010)

2.      Critical Theory in Planning (Forrester, J  1980)

3.      Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning (Davidoff, P 1965).

4.      Master Plan: Friends of Lafitte Corridor

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING IN PRACTICE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NEW ORLEANS VS. KANSAS CITY

KAYJATTA

INTRODUCTION:

The Master Plan of New Orleans is an official document that creates a long-term, 20-year policy and strategic framework that guide growth and development in the post-Katrina city of New Orleans. The Plan intends to bring New Orleans into the 21^st century, yet preserving its unique historic identity of culture, diversity, and urban fabric. In Kansas City, the Forging Our Comprehensive Urban Strategy often referred to simply as the FOCUS PLAN is a 25 year plan beginning in 1992 in order to prepare and well position Kansas City as a model of a “new kind of American city” as we enter into the 21^st century. Unlike New Orleans, Kansas City (FOCUS PLAN) appears to have a regional outlook.

The New Orleans Master Plan is created simultaneously with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO). The CZO is designed for easy use, to implement the policies set forth in the Master Plan, and to reflect New Orleans’ unique characteristics.

This paper attempts a comparative examination of the two plans with particular emphasis on the procedure, the substantive issues addressed (or not addressed), and the level of citizen participation.

 PROCEDURE:

The preparation of the Master Plan and the CZO for New Orleans is a citizen-led endeavor in strong collaboration with city government officials, businesses, real estate developers and civic leaders. A series of public meetings and hearings have been held to generate public and community input. This, it is hoped will reflect accurately how land is used in New Orleans.

This process has paved the way to a greater awareness about the participation t of citizens as enlightened architects of their own destiny. Part of the reason for the awareness of this new planning culture, according to Dr. George Amedee, Chair of the City Planning Commission of New Orleans, is the “increased neighborhood understanding of planning tools”.

The process of developing the new Master Plan and CZO for New Orleans include the following:

1.       Technical review of all the post-katrina planning documents and the current CZO.

2.       City Planning Commission (CPC) will hold public hearings and meetings on the Plan and make revisions.

3.       The CPC then approves the plan and forward it to the City Council.

4.       The City Council holds public hearings.

5.       The City Council then either recommends further revision by the CPC or approves.

6.       The Plan is then adopted upon approval by the City Council, also with public involvement.

By law, the Master Plan and its allied documents can be amended once every year with a mandatory public hearing. The Master Plan must be reviewed and updated, if necessary, every five years.

It is important to note that at every stage of the development of the Master Plan and the CZO, the public is intensely involved and engaged. Similarly, the FOCUS PLAN for Kansas City was created with strong consultation with diverse groups of citizens and neighborhoods from all walks-of-life.  However, citizen participation does not seem as rigorous in Kansas City as it was in New Orleans.

In New Orleans, the implementation of the Master Plan is reserved for the Mayor’s office, but the power to change zoning and related laws remains with the City Council.

New Orleans has a strong Mayor with strong executive powers who serves for two terms. Mayor Nagan in fact fired all but 8 of the 24 city council staff when he resumed after Hurricane Katrina. There are seven City Council members and no City manager. Kansas City on the other hand has a weak mayoral system with a twelve-member City Council and a City Manager.

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES:

The Kansas City FOCUS PLAN aims to achieve certain substantive goals. Among them are:

1.       To revitalize and energize the urban core as a place for residence, work, business, entertainment, and learning for its diverse culture and population.

2.       To promote quality suburban development in unison with the urban core in terms of connectivity because the two are interdependent.

3.       Ensure environmental sustainability by managing and judiciously using natural resources. Transportation and infrastructure are vital components of a well-designed city framework that supports environmental sustainability.

4.       Create jobs for the future by increasing opportunities in technology, education, culture, and the arts for everyone and especially for the younger generation.

5.       To attract financial investments to strengthen the city’s tax base in order to create more prosperity for the citizens.

6.       To build a bottom-up government dependent on strong partnership with citizens, businesses and communities.

The New Orleans Master Plan comparatively aims to achieve the following substantive goals, among others:

1.       Walk-ability-to create a park within a walking distance of every resident.

2.       Connectivity-to ensure that new development fits in with existing neighborhoods.

3.       Bike-ability- to create more bike routes, sidewalks and transits as alternative transportation.

4.       Business-to attract more retail and services to support the economy and neighborhoods.

5.       Citizen participation-to strengthen community participation in decision making.

6.       Environmental sustainability-to protect the future of the city through sound environmental management and sustainability. Planting trees and “greening” will be particularly encouraged.

Both the New Orleans Master Plan and the Kansas City FOCUS Plan, even though they are clearly comprehensive plans, contain substantive policy outcomes that appear consistent with advocacy planning theory for example. The level of citizen participation and community involvement exceeds expectation in both cases.

PLANNING THEORY:

The Master Plan for the post-Katrina New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA) and the FOCUS Plan for Kansas City, Missouri (KCMO) are comprehensive plans as indicative of their broad area of target-zoning; land use; residential, transportation, commercial, etc, etc-over a long period of time. This definition is consistent with T.J. Kent’s version of a comprehensive plan as one that “covers the whole city, deals with all essential physical elements of that urban environment and recognizes its relationship with all significant factors, physical and nonphysical, local and regional, that affect the physical growth and development of the community; Innes, E.J. (1996).

The impressive level of citizen participation and community engagement in preparing the New Orleans Master Plan and the Kansas City FOCUS PLAN have satisfied  both Paul Davidoff’s ‘pluralistic ‘model and Banfields’ ‘Rational’ process. The process and substantive functions in both plans (New Orleans and Kansas City) have overcome structural obstacles as well as unleashed practical opportunities as outlined in John Forrester’s critical theory. The involvement of planning departments from universities across the United states-Princeton, Harvard, UMKC  for example- in post-Katrina New Orleans especially perhaps helped in the effectiveness of these plans by complying with the four norms of pragmatic communication that Dr. Forrester put forward in his article “Critical Theory and Planning Practice” (July 1980).

The resilience of the New Orleans Master Plan and the Kansas City FOCUS plan could perhaps be a refutation of Alan Altshuler’s critical view of comprehensive planning as “neither practically feasible nor politically viable”. Altshuler’s argument that “…public debate on comprehensive planning is impossible because of the scope and generality of comprehensive plans” appears invalid in the case of New Orleans (and to a lesser extent Kansas City). In both cases there was rigorous public debate and community involvement. Judith E. Innes’ “Consensus Building” model appears more inclusive, more broad-based, and more applicable in the cases of New Orleans and Kansas City comprehensive plans.

In the land use decision making in New Orleans, the story appears quite different. Citizen participation is low and the Big Easy (New Orleans) continues to be mired in frustration and lack of trust. “The frustration of those focused on economic development is matched by the frustration of residents who feel deprived of …participation in the future of their neighborhoods”, Innes (1996). The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) of New Orleans did not benefit from the rigorous public debate and the “consensus building” recommended by Judith Innes because the City Planning Commission wields too much power and discretion.  Perhaps Altshuler’s criticisms of comprehensive planning  as incapable of building consensus around the public good is valid in this case. New Orleans, unlike Kansas City, is perhaps mired in this general paralysis and inertia because it was just emerging from a devastating flood by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and emotions were still high and judgment poor on the part of both citizens and politicians.

CONCLUSION:

In this paper I have attempted to give a comparative analysis of NOLA Master Plan and KCMO FOCUS plan in terms of procedure, substance, and participation. In both cases, participation was overall good but particularly emotional and sometimes frustrating in NOLA. The substantive issues addressed were real and significant for a 21^st century American city. The procedures taken in both cases were classic bureaucratic ones.

In any case, both plans have endured and are significantly effective albeit with amendments. New Orleans is a drama that continues to play out today, but it is perhaps the biggest demolition and rebuilding exercise ever in American history bringing all kinds of interest groups (scholars, students of planning, real estate reps, developers, ordinary citizens, and others) together…

REFERENCES:

1.       New Orleans Master Plan

2.       FOCUS PLAN

3.       RUNAWAY DISCRETION: Land USse Decision Making in New Orleans

4.       PLANNING THROUGH CONSENSUS BUILDING: A New View of Comprehensive Planning (J.E. Innes, 1996)

5.       CRITICAL THEORY IN PLANNING PRACTICE (J. Forrester, 1980)

6.       ADVOCACY AND PLURALISM IN PLANNING (Paul Davidoff, 1965)