Defining Public Interest through Participation

Jamie Ferris James Scott Public Administration 5539 13 October 2011

Ferris 1

A strict pluralist rationale suggests and assumes that all citizens should, can and do have opportunities and resources available to facilitate participation and inclusion in the political system in order to reach some sort of realization of the public interest. The concept of

the public interest implies a vaguely universal set of needs and ideals. As Greg Lloyd of the  S chool of Town and Regional Planning at the University of Dundee, Scotland states, the concept and

articulation of the public interest is not only crucial, it is a poorly defined concept in political thinking. The public interest involves a

range of issues around political thinking, legal theory, welfare economics and mediation (2006). Ernest Alexander of the University of Wisconsin further

emphasizes this point: Rather than a clearly defined objective, the public interest is a normative ideal that includes both substantive values and procedural aspectsSubstantive values may be derived from a nations founding documents, or fundamental

lawsProcedural aspects of the public interest in a democracy seek to enhance democratic accountability by consent of the governed, the responsiveness of public officials to the governed, and the appropriate use of sovereign power (2004, p.106). The needs of communities are various and many and often

Ferris 2

politicallyand emotionallycharged.

It is clear that planning is

neither neutral nor free of politics as the rational model suggests; in fact it is vital that planners understand and are able to engage in the political systems and processes so that they may better understand and utilize them to accomplish positive outcomes within them. This is

true also in the attempt to find and meet the needs of the public interest through public involvement. Appeals to the public interest typically work best when they invite participants in a decision-making process to prove that their participation and contribution take into account all relevant interests affected by a decision. Not all participants will agree, but the presence of due process (or it could be a code, or a protocol or a mediating institution or a reporting requirement) promotes a deliberative process of open discussion about the public-interest impacts of potential decisions. (Uhr, 2005 qtd. in Wells, 2007, p. 2).

This process is imperative in the endeavor to define the public interest . However, determining what will benefit the public in general (as distinct from governments or interest groups) is a perpetual struggle, Loyd states, the public interest is often contrasted with the private or individual interest, under the assumption that what is good for society may not be good for a given individual and vice versa . The

public interest is bound up with the prevailing and inherited culture in society (2006).

Ferris 3

The role, necessity and even the validity of planning are often criticized as imposing too much on the lives and rights of property owners. Most supporters of planning cite, among other reasons, the

need to account for market failures of the government to properly ensure equitable access to public goods as justifications for planning (Brooks, 2002; Alexander, 2004). That being so, the rationale behind

planning is not just physically accommodating needs but discovering and addressing the social needs of a community. Public participation is an important part of creating a

comprehensive plan in many cities.

As Kelly and Becker (2000)

suggest, citizens should, at least, [be] entitled to comment on the plan at a formal public hearing before the planning commission adopts it (59). Ideally, they suggest, citizens should help the planning

body to: identify important issues on which the planning process will function, identify strengths and weaknesses of the community, develop a vision or goals for the community, comment on alternative plan scenarios and various aspects of the plans as it evolves an d comment formally a public hearing before the planning commission adopts the plan (60).
Director of the Institute of Urban and Regional Development at the University of California, Berkeley, Professor Judith Innes (1996)

s u g g e s t s t h a t c o n s e n s u s b u i l d i n g i s a he lpf ul, if n ot ne c ess a ry a spe c t o f

Ferris 4

comprehensive

planning .

T h is

s tr ateg y

is

meth o d

of

group

d e li b er atio n that b rin gs tog e th e ra signi f i c a nt r a ng e of in d iv id u a ls chosen because they represent those with dif f ering stakes in a problem ( 461) . S h e p r o p o s es t h a t b e c a u s e a c o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n i s t o b e a l o n gr a n ge polic y state me nt on the f ut ur e o f a c i t y, i nv o lv i ng a l l st a k e ho ld e r s will account for even the weakest members of the community and speak f or the agreed - up on pub lic i ntere st. I nne s sta te s tha t by c hoosi ng to be inclusive in the planning process, the proposals gain legitimacy ( 1996, 4 6 5).

In this view, citizen participation is an undeniably central aspect of planning, yet its role is often debated. While it is accepted that

citizen participation is necessary, on a bureaucratic level, many see the process as time-consuming and minimally useful (Grengs, 2002, p. 171). Additionally, critics of large-scale public involvement suggest

that the process is rarely inclusive and unlikely to actually involve traditionally under-represented minority groups. In that case, any

kind of assumption of the public interest to come out of the process would exclude or misrepresent the needs of those communities .
M i n o r i t y g r o u p s h a v e h i s t o r i c a l l y b e e n e x c l u d e d fr om de cision making in the U.S . P l a n n i n g , l a r g e l y a p r a c t i c e b o r n o u t o f p o l i t i c s a n d g o ve r n menta l struc ture ha s be e n p a rtic u la r l y e x c lu si v e to mi n or i t ie s , a n d in many cases, both historically and presently, has been organized in

Ferris 5

s u c h a m a n n e r a s t o r e i n f o r c e r a c i st policies and practices on an institutional level ( Staf f ord & Ladner, 1969) . Ra cism is a ttribu te d to

the powerlessness of black communities and is perhaps more rampant at present institutionally than bef ore when more overt and individualized ( S taf f ord & L a d n e r , 1 9 6 9 ) . Over time, since the passing of such inclusive legislation as the C iv i l Rig hts A men d me nt ( 1964 ), po li c es th a t h a ve sh a pe d u r b a n ( a nd majority minority) areas have of ten served the interests of white A mericans and those in who hold the powe r . S u b u r b a n i z a t i o n a n d u r b a n r e n ew a l p roje cts p la c ed p lig ht on the urb an c or e s a cr o s s t he c ou n tr y an d created pockets of minorities and the poo r in o nce- af f luent areas . In

s o m e plac es, a dv ocate p lan ner s a nd c o nse n su s- build er s ha ve so ugh t t o include minorit y inte restsif not all interest groups in the planning p r o ce ss, sugg esting tha t a c ity is o nl y a s st r on g a s i t s we a k es t m e m be r , o r at l e as t shou ld con side r the ne ed s o f thos e g r o up s.

However, as Wells (2007) explains, it is not the interest of one or a few groups that creates positive results; The notion of a singular public interest seems perverse in a society characterised [sic] by social and spatial diversity, when we are allegedly considering the interests of future as well as present generations. The suggestion that there is one and only one correct formulation of the public interest has led to a belief in some quarters that there is no such thing as the public interest, that it is a fiction, or a phantom that is used by interest groups as a smokescreen for sectoral or private interests (p.4-5).

Ferris 6

Lyod (2006), on the other hand, provides an alternative professional view: it is acknowledged that the public interest is greater than the sum total of all the individual interests in society . This is not an easy

task, but it does sit at the core of contemporary state-market-civil relations. He offers a different challenge for addressing the public interest issue; changing political ideas, the remorseless rise of individualism, commercialism, materialism and expectations at large have transformed the concept of the public interest. To that end, Wells (2007) suggests that there is often

disagreement about whom in the general population is the relevant and whose best interests must be considered in making the decision (p. 9). The manner in which a citizen interacts in his or her community can reflect the cohesiveness and structure of a city as well as the level at which the public interest is included in decision making. In a local

example, Kansas City, a city with a complex history of segregation, disenfranchisement and racial strife, developed with strict, racially segregating parameters, overcoming the separatist mentality embedded in the citys history has proven slow and difficult. The city council

Ferris 7

adopted the FOCUS [Forging Our Comprehensive Urban Strategy] plan, Kansas Citys comprehensive plan, in 1994 after a two-year, two-phase process initiated by the city government, headed by Mayor Emanuel Cleaver, in attempt to address issues such as urban poverty, blight, [and] shifts in the structure of our economy (City of Kansas City, Mo, 1998). Though approximately 3000 citizens participated in

the first phase of the planning process through organized citizen groups, consensus was not reachedand, in fact, was not even a goal of the process (City of Kansas City, Mo, 1998). I t wa s possible f o r th e
p u bl i c to ge t invo lv e d, th oug h no t in a man n er i n wh ic h I n n es wo ul d f i n d s a t i s f a c t o r y. T h e p r o ces s lack ed acco u n tab ility in en s u r in g th at th e

interests of commonly under - r epr e se nted or exc lud e d gro ups w e r e me t.

This suggests questions of effectiveness; is the FOCUS plan effective in attaining its goals even having not been created out a mutually agreed-upon decision making process? Are other plans, founded more in consensus more successful in their implementation and in addressing issues such as poverty and blight? Or perhaps a plan can represent the best interest without reaching a consensus. As Loyd states, there are different views on how many members of the public must benefit from an action before it can be declared to be in the public interest. He goes on to ask, does an action have to

Ferris 8

benefit every single member of society in order to be in the public interest? Can an action benefit some and harm none and be considered to be in the public interest? (Loyd, 2006). Regardless, he continues, there is a need to re- assert, to re-discover the public interest, to define what we want for society at large and how land use planning can go out and achieve it.

Ferris 9

Works Cited

Alexander, Ernest R. (2004). Capturing the Public Interest. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22, 102-106. Brooks, Michael P. (2002). Planning Theory for Practitioners. American Planning Association, Chicago, Il. Grengs, Joe. (2002). Community Based Planning as a Source of Political Change. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(2), 165-178. Innes, Judith. (1996). Planning though consensus building. American Planning Association, 62(4), 460-471. Journal of the

Kansas City Department of Planning and Development, FOCUS Kansas City Urban Core Work Team. (1998). Focus plan Kansas City, Mo: Retrieved from http://ww4.kcmo.org/planning.nsf/focus/home. Kelly, Eric Damian. & Becker, Barbara. (2000). Community planning : an introduction to the comprehensive plan. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25(2), 68-74. Loyd, Greg. (2006). Planning and the public interest in the modern world. Patrick Geddes Commemorative Lecture 2006. Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland and the Saltire Society, Edinburgh, Scotland. Sir

Stafford, Walter W. and Ladner, Joy. (1969). Comprehensive Planning and Racism. Wells, Carolyn. (2007). A Public Interest Framework for Public Policy Development: A property and urban planning perspective. School of the Built Environment University of Technology, Sydney.