The good old days in equity planning

From all my readings in planning literature of almost 30 years, ‘the good old days’ were the 1970s.  One which left a big impression was Cleveland, Ohio.  Planners there, led by newly appointed Planning Director Norman Kromholz, worked in a highly visible way to achieve equity objectives.  Thus was born ‘advocacy’, ‘equity’, or ‘opportunity’ planning approaches, less a theory than tangible efforts undertaken within the system toward achieving real outcomes.

Cleveland planners publicly challenged favourite urban nostrums.  They not only survived, they prospered.  Ultimately, their efforts impacted the teaching of planning to some degree; many continued their professional careers in this arena.  Equity planning remains an alternative model of agency operations, for those interested in breakthrough approaches.

In the 1970s, economic conditions were bleak, similar in nature in the U.S. or Europe today.  A rising tide above 20% of Cleveland’s population were government dependent; affluent families departed over decades.  Crime rates increased, assessed property values declined, as well as operating revenues.  Unemployment was above 11%, and Cleveland became the first American city since our Great Depression to default on its fiscal obligations.

An activist, interventionist style, with redistributive objectives, came into play.  Strategically and tactically, four interrelated themes became dominant:

1. The urgent reality of conditions,
2. The inherent unfairness and exploitative nature of the urban development process
3. The inability of local politics to address these problems, and
4. Conception of the ethics of professional planning practice.

The Cleveland model became cutting edge:  they asked public administrators to be activists, risk-taking, and redistributist.  It became evident, however, that ‘planning practice actually is cautious and conservative’, despite its liberal mystique in selfless service to a broad public interest.

Most revelatory from Mr. Krumholz’ account, which has stifled real progress through present times, is the following indictment:

Most planners, I began to think, were ordinary bureaucrats seeking a secure career, some status, and regular increases in salary.  They rarely took unpopular public positions since these might prejudice their chances to achieve these modest objectives.  The average planner came out of a middle class background and was not likely to be upset with social conditions or matters bearing on who-gets-what issues in society to the point where substantial, radical change would seem a legitimate objective.  Many planners absorbed the values and philosophy of business which has helped their status, income, and security.

A few lessons learned:  1.)activities of traditional planning agencies succeed in altering the physical environment, but they are largely irrelevant to the needs of people where the problems are largely economic, social, and political, 2.) as a profession, planning has been too timid, 3.)the essential step in an activist role lies in the adoption of a clearly defined goal, 4.)pursuit of equity objectives requires a focus on the decision-making process; those who have better information and know what outcomes they want to achieve have a great advantage over the other participants, 5.)to be effective, planners must participate in an issue for a long period of time, 6.)if a planner’s work is to be used, he must take it beyond the commission into the public arena, and take his risks while arguing on many fronts, 7.) a planning agency that offers its staff an activist, user-oriented problem-solving program will never lack for outstanding recruits, and 8.) it is this process conducted with verve, imagination, and above all with persistence, that offers the planner challenging and rewarding work and a better life for others.

Let’s never forget Cleveland’s example, Mr. Krumholz, and the 1970s era of equity planning achievements, which are quite suitable for our times.