Great Michael Bates article - PLANiTULSA process

[PonderInc]

If you've participated in a PLANiTULSA workshop and you're wondering how all these maps and stickers relate to reality... Michael Bates has written a terrific article you'll enjoy.

http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A26276

Here's an excerpt:

Software models, programmed with data about existing land uses and land values, can show the impact of new development on population, property values, and infrastructure demand. The models are customized to reflect the social, economic and legal realities of the place being studied.

Fregonese's software is called "Envision Tomorrow," and the company Web site describes it as "a scenario building and evaluation application that was developed to facilitate the creation of explicit future growth scenarios. [The tool] allows planners to 'paint' the landscape with different development types and then, using a series of benchmarks or indicators, measure the impacts and benefits from different land use and transportation patterns."

The software can be used to study scenarios for neighborhoods, districts, cities, or entire regions. When the PLANiTULSA process is done, Tulsa's planning department will retain the right to use the software for future planning.

Part of Envision Tomorrow is something called a "tipping point analysis." Given existing land values and a set of potential building types for new development, the software can identify parcels that are feasible for redevelopment, based on the local economy, local values and land use regulations.

It's possible to tweak the program's inputs to show the impact of tweaking the zoning code. For example, building types that currently aren't feasible might be if parking requirements and setbacks were reduced or allowable building heights were increased.

...In analyzing future scenarios, the PLANiTULSA team is examining a "5 percent solution" -- by redeveloping old commercial and industrial sites along with, possibly, a few new satellite centers in undeveloped parts of north and east Tulsa, the city can accommodate the kind of population and job growth we need while leaving 95 percent of the land area untouched.

Contrary to what we've been told by self-styled "pro-growth" folks, we can have growth without damaging neighborhoods or paving over the entire countryside.

Another exciting aspect of tipping point analysis is the potential to demonstrate the economic feasibility of types of buildings and developments that are new to Tulsa....

Want to learn more?  Read the article online.

[Double A]

Here's the best excerpt:

However good the PLANiTULSA process is, land-use planning alone won't cure what ails our city. Something has to be done to create a workable "civic infrastructure," an ongoing way to ensure that citizens have a say in our city's governance. The Collective Strength survey of a thousand Tulsans, part of the initial phase of PLANiTULSA, identified a strong cynicism about the way land-use decisions are made and enforced.

A group of community leaders from every City Council district, including leaders from Preserve Midtown and Who Owns Tulsa?, is trying to build a network of neighborhood associations and community groups to advocate for four guiding principles in the development process: "transparency, accountability, consistency and inclusion."

The absence of these qualities in our zoning process accounts for much of the friction over controversial developments.

As we noted above, there is plenty of room to accommodate new growth in Tulsa without destroying the unique qualities of Tulsa's neighborhoods or driving all development out to the suburbs. Perhaps PLANiTULSA research will help to wipe out the misconception that strong neighborhood organizations are an obstacle to healthy growth.

To the contrary, these neighborhood leaders note that thriving cities have strong citizen participation in land-use decisions, producing quality growth that enhances the city for the long-run.

While we put together a great plan, let's put together a transparent, accountable, consistent and inclusive process to carry it out.

How do you achieve that?

Ged rid of INCOG, first and foremost.

Develop planning districts with elected planning district representatives from within the districts and planners assigned to the districts to represent neighborhoods and areas of the city before the TMAPC and the BOA like Bates wrote about in an earlier article

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Here's the best excerpt:

However good the PLANiTULSA process is, land-use planning alone won't cure what ails our city. Something has to be done to create a workable "civic infrastructure," an ongoing way to ensure that citizens have a say in our city's governance. The Collective Strength survey of a thousand Tulsans, part of the initial phase of PLANiTULSA, identified a strong cynicism about the way land-use decisions are made and enforced.

A group of community leaders from every City Council district, including leaders from Preserve Midtown and Who Owns Tulsa?, is trying to build a network of neighborhood associations and community groups to advocate for four guiding principles in the development process: "transparency, accountability, consistency and inclusion."

The absence of these qualities in our zoning process accounts for much of the friction over controversial developments.

As we noted above, there is plenty of room to accommodate new growth in Tulsa without destroying the unique qualities of Tulsa's neighborhoods or driving all development out to the suburbs. Perhaps PLANiTULSA research will help to wipe out the misconception that strong neighborhood organizations are an obstacle to healthy growth.

To the contrary, these neighborhood leaders note that thriving cities have strong citizen participation in land-use decisions, producing quality growth that enhances the city for the long-run.

While we put together a great plan, let's put together a transparent, accountable, consistent and inclusive process to carry it out.

How do you achieve that?

Ged rid of INCOG, first and foremost.

Develop planning districts with elected planning district representatives from within the districts and planners assigned to the districts to represent neighborhoods and areas of the city before the TMAPC and the BOA like Bates wrote about in an earlier article

Not going to say your conclusions are wrong.  They make sense, but considering Tulsa's history, how do we keep the planning districts and their planners from becoming beholden to the Bumgarners of the world and being totally perverted by various special interests and in-fighting?

Just wait till you have city councilors and planners with opposing agendas, or worse, collusion.

Please feel free to expand on it, I'd just like to think about what kinds of oversight or checks and balances would keep everyone happy and keep the developers from greasing the skids to get crappy dreck slid through with minimal citizen input.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


Not going to say your conclusions are wrong.  They make sense, but considering Tulsa's history, how do we keep the planning districts and their planners from becoming beholden to the Bumgarners of the world and being totally perverted by various special interests and in-fighting?

I'm a big fan of clean elections and the district representative elections should be non-partisan.

Nothing is perfect, but I think the saying "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried" sums it up best. It would be a vast improvement over the unaccountable, quasi-governmental, private bureaucracy that lords over planning and development known as INCOG that we currently have.

How do we get the ball rolling? The Council could put this on the ballot this November for voters to decide with whatever other charter changes they see fit to send to a public vote. Of course, the Council could be bypassed with an initiative petition to put it on the ballot, also.