The ethic dilemma in Planning Theory reading asked of what we would do if high power planning director ask of an ethic situation which can bring dividing lines between city and government. In my personal opinion, I would resign as it is conflict of interest, since I “happened to live three blocks away.” Regardless of economic situation in wall street, I would walk away knowing that I didn't let down my values. It is almost if they expect you to sell your soul.
There is an personal story that compares to the main story here. My father-in-law lives in a small town of 3000 resides which is 30 minutes outside of Peoria, IL and recently a gas company, Casey came in town asking for a permit of built across from the existing town gas station. Casey specializes in small town retail/gas station as they do around the country. There were residents for and against the zoning rights. One side believed that with the existing station, the owner is at old age and no one would continue funding the station in case his health declined. This would also help bring revenue to the town as it is a bigger company. Other opposed as it was a threat to the existing town. They eventually passed the zoning and the town has not had any conflict of interest as it would be in the story. The residents were not planners but ordinary citizens on zoning board that took control of situation.
This scenario is also based on values which we talked about in class last week and how we all have sets of values as a person and a planner. My question brings is how can we be free of influence in planning. Especially in the United States, since this country is still in a segregated mentality. We typically view poor as the African American population that are on section 8 and living in rough parts of town. Whenever studies come out in those terminology, it become biased that they planned their lives to be that way. Planning would not justify it as the area eventually becomes gentrified, moving the poor out and the planning backfires; in reality, the residents need to make change for themselves without government’s assistance.
This leads to Micro and Macro economics of planning that in beginning, planning was typically micro in theory and now it has shift to the macroeconomics in larger scale. While micro is good for smaller government such as smaller countries, that was explained in Bollen’s intergroup conflict and fractured planning. It focuses on the small scale where in United States, we have over 50 states with different planning and zoning regulations. The macro can come in and replace “me” theory with “we” theory to bring in closer relationships.
There were several mentions of color blind planning, if I were to plan without color in mind, I can see people objecting to the cluster as there are people out there believe in individuality. I think we could co exist in planning in a way that individualism is also important. The meeting on Tuesday mentioned that the January Vision meeting that everyone wants to group together but yet there were some opposition that Cherry wanted their own plan. I can see why they would want their own plan. However, to save time and put them together is also idealistic as they can form a closer bond with each other.
Values were also put on table frequently as the planners debated the terminology and “uptown” while sharing their thoughts. Each one of them felt different over the word center city, yet there was really no conclusion over the word. I walked away feeling how do I define “Uptown, center city” as an outsider looking in, wanting to share my feelings with them. I knew better but there were times I am sure the other classmates wanted to share their inputs.
I believe planning cannot be neutral however we can help them steer to the path of resolution instead of attacking each other. Planning is therapeutic if you let the planner help you resolve the conflict between parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment