Upload
brian-a-salmons
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/14/2019 How Shall We Grow?: a Critical Assessment of Community Visioning in Central Florida
1/16
How Shall We Grow?:
A Critical Assessment of
Community Visioning
in Central Florida
Paper #3 for:
CD505X "Community Development II"
Dr. Timothy Borich
Spring 2007
Iowa State University
8/14/2019 How Shall We Grow?: a Critical Assessment of Community Visioning in Central Florida
2/16
INTRODUCTION
If you had been watching TV in Central Florida the night of January 26, 2007, while channel-
surfing during a commercial break in theLaw & Orderrepeat, or the WWE Smackdown1, you might have
come across a live television program where a panel of local leaders, men and women dressed in suits,
were seated behind a table debating issues of great importance and listening to and answering well-crafted
questions from audience members. The panelists talked about a regional vision for the future of Central
Florida and how the Chip Game was used to gather input from community members, regular citizens like
yourself. They talked about an organization called myregion.organd its role in bringing together the
regions leaders and citizens through a series of meetings held over the past year. The program moderator
urged viewers to go online and cast their vote for the future of Central Florida. Your reaction to seeing this
might have been, What vote? Its this week? Nobody asked me to play the Chip Game, after which you
turned the channel back to Smackdown to watch Batista plant Helms in a painful spine-buster.
Whether you personally were in this scenario or not, many residents of Central Florida were. The
purpose of the above illustration is to allude to a problem with a local community visioning project and
its efforts to foster citizen participation in the visioning process. In the first section of this paper, the most
salient points of the community development strategy of community visioning will be outlined, followed
by a brief explanation of the social and policy environment of Central Florida in which a community
visioning project is currently been conducted. The ways in which the project was conceived, implemented
and conducted will then be examined in light of the generalized outline. While recognizing that any
community development strategy must be tailored, or even developed anew, to fit the particular community
in which it is applied2, the degree to which Central Floridas particular project followed the generally
agreed upon strategies for community visioning will be looked at critically. The paper will conclude with a
few suggestions for how the project could have implemented and conducted the visioning process in a more
inclusive and collaborative manner, one more consistent with the projects avowed commitment to citizen
participation.
8/14/2019 How Shall We Grow?: a Critical Assessment of Community Visioning in Central Florida
3/16
Figure 1. (Table 2 from Green, Haines & Halebsky, 2000, p. 2-2.)
COMMUNITY VISIONING
Green and Haines characterize the ideal community vision as one that occurs through a group
process that tries to arrive at a consensus about the future of place (2002, p. 43). The theoretical crux of
community visioning is that it begins with the values of residents and the visions they have for their
community(p. 46). As such, community visioning is a radical departure from planning strategies
conceived in the atmosphere of scientific rationalism that pervaded the planning field for most of the 20th
century (Brooks, 2002). In particular, strategic planning, a frequently used paradigm in planning
8/14/2019 How Shall We Grow?: a Critical Assessment of Community Visioning in Central Florida
4/16
endeavors today, assumes that the planning process is under the control of specialists from beginning to end
(p. 90), thereby dismissing the need for any meaningful form of citizen participation.
The community visioning process has been described in detail by many authors (e.g. Walzer, 1996
and Green & Haines, 2002). A guide written by Green, Haines and Halebsky and published by the
University of Wisconsin Extension office will serve as the primary source about community visioning in
this paper (2000). Green et al. lay out twelve steps in the process of developing and implementing a
community vision in what they call the long-term version (see Figure 1). The process begins in Step 1
with the initiators of the process forming a committee, signaling the beginning of a community visioning
process. The committee frames the process by making key decisions on the nature of the process itself,
including what to call it, how to secure political and financial support, and how to define the community for
which a vision will be made. Generating publicity for the process also begins in this first step, as does the
search for community stakeholders from whom input into the visioning process will be sought. The
importance of seeking to include a broad cross-section of the community, consisting of members of all
conceivable interest groups within the community, cannot be stressed enough. Of course, seeking the
participation of all community members is ideal, but this may not be practicable in larger communities, or
in a metropolitan conglomerate of communities like Central Florida.
The next step, the community visioning workshop, is the first of several opportunities for
stakeholders to provide their input into the process. Green et al. identify to primary goals for this first round
of community workshops: discussing, deciding on and drafting a vision statement, and then breaking the
vision down into key areas that can be handled by separate task forces. The drafting of a vision statement is
perhaps the most defining moment of a community visioning process, as it is where the community
stakeholders come together and collectively decide on a vision for the future of the community. There are
three general questions that should be answered in a vision statement:
- What do people want to preserve in a community?
- What do people want to create in a community?
- What do people want to change in the community? (p. 2-8)
8/14/2019 How Shall We Grow?: a Critical Assessment of Community Visioning in Central Florida
5/16
Other important items or language to include in the statement are an emphasis on inclusiveness, mentioning
specific groups of stakeholders, using positive, forward-looking language and setting a concrete time-frame
for achieving the community vision.
After the vision statement has been drafted, the task of forming key area committees must be done
(step 3). Breaking up the highly generalized community vision into key area vision statements is important
in order to facilitate the creation of action plans for each key area. The key area action plans are
developed through a second round of community visioning workshops (step 4). The same issues addressed
in organizing the initial community workshop, namely identifying and reaching out to stakeholders through
appropriate publicity strategies, should be addressed again in the key area workshops. These workshops are
conducted in much the same manner as the initial workshop, with the end result being a refined community
vision regarding the key area that is articulated with the goals of the overall community vision.
Steps 5 and 6 of the community visioning process outlined by Green et al. are about research and
data collection. Existing planning documents must be located and assessed for their relevance to the new
community vision. Previous attempts at creating a community consensus on particular issues or at
achieving a community vision are also important to consider at this stage. Another important task is the
collection of new data that will help in the formation of action plans for the key areas as well as the overall
vision. Examples of data that might be relevant to study include population figures, employment rates,
demographic trends and land use patterns.
The purpose of gathering this data is to help develop specific action plans, however it is important
not to jump straight into this part of the process yet. Step 7 involves the formation of general goals and
strategies, based on the analysis of this data, which will open up the opportunity to consider all possible
actions that may be taken to achieve a communitys vision. This way, preconceived ideas about what needs
to be done are not hastily put into action when alternative and more appropriate strategies might come to
light from the process.
After the key area vision statements have been refined and general goals and strategies have been
determined, a third and final community workshop should be held wherein the results of the visioning
process up to that point are presented to the public and opened up to comments and criticism from
attendees. This workshop represents the final formal forum within which citizen participation occurs in a
8/14/2019 How Shall We Grow?: a Critical Assessment of Community Visioning in Central Florida
6/16
collaborative manner. For this reason, Green et al. stress the need to reach out even more to community
stakeholders and to encourage those who cannot attend the workshop to send in their comments about the a
published results by mail (p. 2-12). In the 21st century, the opportunity for a Internet-based community
participation is particularly salient here, as online technologies like email, webforms and blogs provide a
broader array of avenues for collecting community input into the visioning process.
After the conclusion of the final workshop, the time for developing specific action plans (step 9)
and implementing them (step 10) arrives. These steps are primarily the function of the initiators of the
community visioning process, or else of elected community leaders, government planning departments or
other specialist stakeholders who are trained to deal in the legal, technical and political intricacies of the
specific action plans. In other words, this is the point at which the traditional scientific rationalism mode
of planning takes over. Community input does come back into the picture after implementation has
occurred (step 11) in the form of input into the monitoring and evaluation of the process and is results. For
example, evaluation might conclude that greater community participation is needed in order to formulate a
more comprehensive community vision (or a key area of that vision), thereby garnering broader community
support for the process and effecting better results.
Central Florida is currently involved in a community visioning process similar in structure to the
generalization outlined above. At the time of writing this, the regions final community visioning workshop
is anticipated within a couple of months, after which action plans will be developed, implemented and
evaluated. The next section of this paper will examine this process as it has played out in Central Florida up
until this stage.
COMMUNITY VISIONING IN CENTRAL FLORIDA
Visioning programs have been a strategy in Central Floridas community development toolbox
since at least the 1980s. The regionally-focused visioning project that is the subject of this paper began as
informal conversations among concerned local leaders in 1999 (Lauten, 2007) and was officially
inaugurated in 2001 as myregion.org(myregion.org, Sept. 2006). However, it was partly inspired by the
failure of a previous visioning project called Goals 2000. Begun as Project 2000 in 1984, its aim was
to set a blueprint for the future that both public agencies and private industry can work from (Kilsheimer,
8/14/2019 How Shall We Grow?: a Critical Assessment of Community Visioning in Central Florida
7/16
1985). When the year 2000 passed and the majority of the projects goals had not been realized, plans for a
new vision were already in the making.
Initially conceived as a two-year plan to transform Central Florida's stagnant landscape by
diversifying the tourism-dependent economy, protecting dwindling green space and strengthening poor
schools (Maxwell, 2001), myregion.orghas turned into a six-year long endeavor focused on a much
broader array of community issues within the seven-county region3. The first few years of the project were
marked by an appearance of stagnance and leaders were frequently asked about the purpose of the project
and why no action plans had been developed (Maxwell, 2002). But in the past year, with the inclusion of
the visioning and urban service area provision into the Growth Management Act, the project has
gained a renewed focus. The latest round of activities of the myregion.orgproject, a schedule of leadership
meetings, community workshops and informational meetings, and online community interaction, has been
christened How Shall We Grow?
HOW SHALL WE GROW?
During the summer of 2005, the Florida legislature passed a bill4 effecting several modifications to
the state's Growth Management Act. The Act, formally known as the Local Government Comprehensive
Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was passed in 1985 and required that all Florida counties
and municipalities adopt a comprehensive plan attending to such issues as future land use and concurrency
of infrastructure (Florida Department of Community Affairs, n.d.). The 2005 modifications to the Act
include an optional provision in which "local governments are encouraged to develop a community vision
that provides for sustainable growth, recognizes its fiscal constraints, and protects its natural resources"
(Florida Statute, Sec. 163.3177(13)). A corollary goal of this visioning process is to develop an "urban
service boundary" for municipalities within which future development is to be densely concentrated
(Florida Statute, Sec. 163.3177(14)). The incentive for developing urban service areas through a visioning
project is that when local governments want to amend their comprehensive plan regarding land use within
these urban service boundaries, these amendments are exempt from state review. This exemption provides
local governments with "an opportunity to expedite larger scale developments" (Apgar et al., 2005). In an
emphasis on the role of citizen participation, the new provision requires that "two public meetings" and "at
8/14/2019 How Shall We Grow?: a Critical Assessment of Community Visioning in Central Florida
8/16
least one public workshop with stakeholder groups" are made a part of the visioning process in order for the
project to qualify for exemption.
Shortly after this bill was passed, myregion.orgbegan work on the How Shall We Grow? project.
The sequence of events in the How Shall We Grow? community visioning process is outlined in several
organizational documents archived at myregion.orgs website, as well as in radio and television interviews
that are also archived online (myregion.org, 2006; WMFE, 2006). The events are divided up conceptually
into four components: Leadership Engagement, Community Engagement, Communication Strategies and
Technical Activities (myregion.org, Sept. 2006, p. 18). The desired outcomes of the process were defined
as a high-level, 50-year vision, a policy framework, data, maps and analytical tools that can serve as
a guide to other regions undertaking similar projects, and consensus among elected officials, business and
community leaders and implementing agencies regarding the community vision (p. 18). A schedule of
events was set out from the beginning of the project and was strictly adhered to, with the exception of only
one minor setback5. Events were laid out in seven steps:
Step 1 Regional Kickoff Event 29 March 2006
Step 2 Community Information Sessions April & May 2006
Step 3 Community Input Sessions May June 2006
Step 4 Community Input Sessions: Scenario Planning Aug. Sept. 2006
Step 5 Regional Event: Refining Scenarios 13 October 2006
Step 6 Outreach: Selecting a Shared Vision January March 2007
Step 7 Community Summit June 2007
Work on the project components and outcomes had begun well before the first meeting was held
on 29 March 2006. Several studies of the region were coordinated by myregion.orgin the preceding two
years, and though not specifically commissioned for the How Shall We Grow? project, they were
subsequently used in the creation of the scenarios that were the focal point of community input for the
project. One study in particular,PennDesign Central Florida, a study of growth trends in the region, was
used to postulate a trend scenario of what Central Florida could look like in the year 2050 if current
growth patterns held constant.The study was prepared by a University of Pennsylvania graduate design
studio in Spring 2005 for the University of Central Florida-based Metropolitan Center for Regional Studies
8/14/2019 How Shall We Grow?: a Critical Assessment of Community Visioning in Central Florida
9/16
(Barnett et al., 2005). Its conclusions were that by 2050, the population of Central Florida would be more
than double its 2000 population (from 3.05 million to 7.2 million in 2050), and that to accommodate this
increase in population an additional 1,163,573 acres of currently undeveloped land will need to be
urbanized at the cost of USD$104 billion (p. 42).
In addition to data gathering, a series of educational meetings were held in January and March of
2006, referred to as the Regional Leadership Academy, the purpose of which was to educate local elected
officials about the results of thePennDesign and other studies of the region6. The meetings helped identify
key elements of the policy framework for the regional vision, and created a cadre of regional leaders who
will be able to support the vision as it emerges (p. 20). The official kickoff event which followed was
attended by about 325 community members and leaders who participated in electronic polling and a
facilitated discussion (p. 21). To indicate that this was the first step in the process of obtaining community
input, myregion.orglabeled it Starting the Conversation.
The next opportunity for community participation was two Community Information Sessions
held April 27th and May 23rd in Orlando. Participation was by invitation only, however the meetings were
open to the entire community (Lauten, 2006) so that, in effect, a citizen who wanted to attend had only to
informally send an RSVP. Each meeting consisted of three identical 90-minute sessions in which
participants were provided an overview of the visioning process and asked to provide input on what growth
issues they felt were most relevant (myregion.org, Sept. 2006, p. 22). Attendance was tallied at 633 people
and meeting times were spread out into breakfast, luncheon and afternoon snack sessions on the two
weekdays.
The first round of Community Input Sessions were held in various cities throughout the seven-
county region in the months of May and June 2006. Two meetings were conducted in each county. Part I
meetings focused on what was called the Chip Game in which citizens were given various sized plastic
chips representing urban developments of varying population. The value of the chips added up to the
PennDesign studys estimation of Central Floridas 2050 population. The task for participants was to figure
out how to place all of the chips on a table-top map of the region. As one member of myregion.orgs
leadership put it, the Chip Game was about setting aside all the technical planning knowledge and asking
regular citizens to use their reason to decide what will work (Stuart, 2007). The Mid-Project Report
8/14/2019 How Shall We Grow?: a Critical Assessment of Community Visioning in Central Florida
10/16
emphasized the need to gain the insight of each community through the eyes of local residents at these
sessions (myregion.org, Sept. 2006, p. 22). Participants were presented with information about traditional,
neotraditional, and alternative neighborhood design patterns and a spectrum of density development
types were shown along with factual information detailing the amount of resources consumed for each
type, after which participants were encouraged to express which pattern of growth they would like to see
in their communities. In total, this round of sessions drew more than 1,100 attendees (p. 22). Meetings were
generally held on weekdays and lasted from 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (e.g. Residents can participate in
meetings about growth, 2006).
The second opportunity for significant community input came in August and September. These
Scenario Planning sessions were focused on examining community maps and a composite map of the
region that were generated from the Chip Game and input sessions conducted in April and May. The intent
was to allow citizens to reexamine their decisions, make changes and address conflicting visions within and
between stakeholders (p. 22). The use of technologies such as interactive mapping software was
particularly useful as it allowed participants to visualize the results of their decisions about growth. The
second round of sessions were held in on weekdays in the same time slots as the original meetings
(Regional-growth chats coming up, 2006).
The final meeeting wherein community input was sought was held 13 October 2006 in Orlando.
The event, titled Refining Scenarios, showcased the unveiling of the composite model developed by
community participants at the previous community input sessions. Attendees were then asked to compare
their model withPennDesigns Trend Model and detemine if they see a need to change (myregion.org,
Sept. 2006, p. 23). Also at this meeting, a set of three alternative growth scenarios were presented to
participants. The scenarios, named Green Areas, Centers and Corridors, were developed by the East
Central Florida Regional Planning Council (Laurien, 2007b).
During the Community-wide Outreach, a massive public information strategy was implemented
to get the word out about the results of the community input sessions, particularly the three alternative
scenarios developed by the ECFRCP. A live television program (the generalized scenario presented in the
introduction of this paper) was broadcast jointly by two local stations, one public and one commercial7 and
served as the centerpiece of the publicity strategy for this part of the project. The program itself was
8/14/2019 How Shall We Grow?: a Critical Assessment of Community Visioning in Central Florida
11/16
actually an opportunity to collect community input, wherein viewers used their cable remotes to
electronically cast their vote for a growth scenario. But viewers were also informed that voting may take
place through the internet. This online survey took place from January 26 th through February 14th and was
submitted by 7, 319 different voters. The results showed that 38% preferred the Centers scenario as
their first choice, 31% preferred Corridors and 27% preferred Green Areas. Only 4% of respondants
preferred the Trend Model over the alternative scenarios (myregion.org, 2007).
The Community Summit is scheduled for June of this year. The focus of this part of the project
is to set the stage for policy implementation of the vision (myregion.org, Sept. 2006, p. 24). At this stage,
the opportunity for significant community input ends and officials, govermnet agencies and business
leaders attempt to hammer out a proposal to be presented to the state government.
CRITICISM
A comparison of the structure of a community visioning process as outlined by Green et al. (2000)
with the structure of theHow Shall We Grow? visioning project brings to light a series of major flaws with
the plan, as well as inconsistencies between certain stated desires ofmyregion.orgabout the process and the
strategies they used and the outcomes they celebrated.
WHOS GRASSROOTS?
Phil Laurien, director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, stated
enthusiastically in an television interview about theHow Shall We Grow? project, It is not a top down
project. It is grassroots (Laurien, 2007a). Other commentators within the leadership ofmyregion.orghave
made similar statements. That the plan to initiate a community visioning process was not a grassroots
idea of the Central Florida community is patently obvious from a cursory examination of the projects
documents. Presentations made at a Regional Leadership Forum, held in conjunction with the final
community input session in October, make very clear that the project is a top-down initiative. Jacob
Stuart, President ofmyregion.orgas well as the Orlando Chamber of Commerce, stated that what Central
Florida needs is a vision that connects existing and future plans (Stuart, 2006). What this comment refers
to is the previously mentioned state-mandated requirement to amend local government comprehensive
plans through the successful completion of a visioning project that identifies specific urban service
areas within a municipality or county. Another commentator admitted that we have to arrive at a
8/14/2019 How Shall We Grow?: a Critical Assessment of Community Visioning in Central Florida
12/16
compromise between the things our region needs and the residents want (Centers of Growth, 2007), tacitly
recognizing that a grassroots vision for the future of the region might not be in the interests of all of the
regions communities, but especially not in the interests of certain community and business leaders (e.g.
companies heavily invested in suburban developments lying outside of the urban service area). Thus,
rather than being a home-grown, grassroots effort to improve the quality of life across a seven-county
region,How Shall We Grow? is, at least in the most immediate sense, the response of local elected officials
and business leaders to a policy requirement imposed from the top-down.
WHOS DATA?
Green et al. place the data gathering step in the community visioning process at number 6, after
both the initial community visioning event that begins the process as well as after the key area visioning
events. This is because the data gathering process needs to reflect the priorities of the community, as
reflected in the collective vision. The fact that data gathering forHow Shall We Grow? occurred well
before the project was even conceived prompts the question of how relevant this data is to the community
vision that was subsequently generated. The role of data gathering in this project seems to have been
reversed: instead of informing stakeholders about how they can better achieve the vision they have set our
for themselves, data like thePennDesign Trend Model and the ECFRPCs alternative growth scenarios
serve the purpose of framing the visioning process with theories, values and language of trained specialists.
The evidence becomes the source of the communitys vision, rather than the support for it.
Another example of how the community visioning process was guided by specialists knowledge
comes from a discussion of density and the Centers growth scenario (which happened to be voted the
most preferred scenario). On a television program about the project, the narrator summed-up the issue with
the statement Changing public perceptions about density wont be easy. But density is a byproduct of
growth, and its coming whether we want it or not (Centers of Growth, 2007). Incorporating the view that
dense urban development is inevitable for Central Florida does not leave any room for alternative points of
view that may not see density as desirable future for the regions communities.
WHOS VISION?
By now, it should be clear that the genuineness of effort put into making the process truly open to
community input and reflective of a grassroots vision is not sincere. But this is not say that
8/14/2019 How Shall We Grow?: a Critical Assessment of Community Visioning in Central Florida
13/16
myregion.orgs leaders and organizers did not attempt to seek a broad basis of community participation
from as many interest groups as possible. An all volunteer Strategic Communication Committee was
established to convey the message of the project to the general public, the media and to targeted audiences
(myregion.org, Sept. 2006, p. 25). They utilized a plethora of diverse media to publicize the project,
including a website with multiple linkages to other sites, and electronic newsletter, a limited-circulation
magazine calledFirstMonday, a blog to foster discussion and debate amongst younger or tech-savvy
community members, as well as television commercials aired on local TV stations and in the local bus
system, and a Speakers Bureau that made spokespersons available for educational presentations (p. 25-26).
Media contact included press releases sent to almost 110 media outlets and 200 media members, and
coverage in local newspapers, television and radio news broadcasts, and editorial commentary were noted
(p. 26). Notably, myregion.orgalso made attempts to involve groups who have historically been excluded
from community decisions, including a Spanish-language Public Service Announcement, conducting a
Chip Game in Spanish, reaching out to churches to increase participation from African-American
communities, and conducting Chip Games in local high schools and colleges. (p. 26-27).
The effectiveness of many of these strategies for increasing citizen participation have been noted
elsewhere. For example, maintaining multiple web linkages between an organizations website and other
relevant websites greatly increases the organizations visibility when search engines like Google are used
(Riemer, 2003, p. 858). Likewise, airing a Public Service Announcement on the local bus system,
conducting Chip Games at high schools and on college campuses, and holding community input sessions in
the evenings after most people have gotten off from work are strategies that recognize the busy nature of
citizens lives and attempt to go to where the people are (Francis-Brophy, 2006, p. 9). However, given
the importance of this project and the effect that any policies implemented as a result of the momentum of
the consensus built through the visioning process, much more could have been done to foster citizen
participation.
To begin with, while most of the community input sessions were held in the evenings to
accommodate the majority of attendees, the sessions wherein final votes were cast, or rather where the
greatest opportunity to oppose an articulated vision exists, were conducted in the morning or afternoon on
weekdays in resort hotels located in one city (Orlando). The potential is therefore large that stakeholders
8/14/2019 How Shall We Grow?: a Critical Assessment of Community Visioning in Central Florida
14/16
who work nine-to-fives with little autonomy, who are intimidated by idea of entering an establishment like
a resort hotel, or who for whatever reason cannot find transportation or the time to travel to Orlando will be
excluded from these meetings. Conducting several sessions of a meeting at different locations and times of
day would increase the chances that many other interested citizens would attend.
myregion.orgattempted to address the issue of including groups who are typically excluded,
whether because of deliberate actions on the part of organizers, being overlooked by them, or because they
are just uninterested or believe they have nothing to contribute to such an endeavor. However, their efforts
at increasing the diversity of participation were minimal compared to what might have been accomplished
with more creative strategizing. For example, Francis-Brophy suggests seeking community input from
participants in a relaxed atmosphere, mentioning street parties and outdoor film festivals as examples (p. 9).
In Central Florida, there are numerous arts and crafts fairs in various municipalities and counties where
information booths could have been set up and staffed by volunteers (perhaps by the Speakers Bureau).
Downtown Orlando is a busy place during most hours of the day and information booths or volunteers
passing out brochures might be effective there. A medium that is commonly found in many buildings is the
bulletin board. Grocery stores, government offices, bars and coffee shops, community recreation centers
and other highly frequented facilities are an ideal place to post flyers advertising to people of all income
levels. Additionally, Internet technology provides multiple media through which to spread the word. Blogs
and electronic newsletters were used by myregion.org, but other, newer forums to consider might be the
video-sharing website YouTube and networking websites like myspace. An example of how these
technologies can be used to foster citizen participation is the Barack Obama 2008 Presidential Campaign
profile at myspace (Barack Obama, 2007).
TOKENISM AND MANIPULATION
Sherry Arnstein, in her classic 1969 articleA Ladder of Citizen Participation, presents a model of
the levels of citizen participation that exist in the context of planning policy. The levels range through three
supra-levels called Nonparticipation, Tokenism and Citizen Power. She developed the ladder
typology in order to make it possible to cut through the hyperbole that is frequently pervades discussions
of citizen participation in particular projects. As such, it is particularly relevant to the examination of
citizen participation in theHow Shall We Grow? project. Her Tokenism typology, which includes the
8/14/2019 How Shall We Grow?: a Critical Assessment of Community Visioning in Central Florida
15/16
rubrics of Informing and Consultation, perhaps best describes myregion.orgs efforts as fostering a
community visioning process. Arnstein states that the most frequent methods used in the consultation
strategy are attitude surveys, neighborhood meetings, and public hearings and participation is measured
by how many people come to meetingsor answer a questionnaire rather than by the inclusiveness and
openness of the process itself. The project even resembled Manipulation (the lowest rung on the ladder),
following Arnsteins description of the strategy as one where the officialseducated, persuaded, and
advised the citizens, not the reverse. That a 21st century community visioning project can resemble a mid-
20th century characterization of bad governance so closely does not reflect well on the leadership of
myregion.org.
CONCLUSION
It should be noted that the author of this paper is an adamant believer in the planning theories and
strategies (i.e. smart growth, density, mass transit and protection of green areas) for which the leaders of
myregion.org, as well as the majority of participants in theHow Shall We Grow? project, are advocating.
However, the prior existence of a majority consensus on the part of citizens, elected officials and the
planning profession does not legitimize the appropriation of a community visioning framework for the
purposes of manufacturing consent to effect a pre-determined policy objective. But the objection to this
sort of activity consists of more than a moral component; there are practical considerations as well. In a
recent article, Richards and Dalbey discuss the effect of a non-inclusive decision-making process on
desired objectives. They state Because of this non-inclusive process, the resulting development, if
approved, can often fail to contribute to a healthy, vibrant neighborhood fabricIf the development is not
approved in local elections, the developer often has to begin the design and approval process again (2006,
p. 23). The implications of this forHow Shall We Grow? would be salient not only for the leadership of
myregion.org, but for the communities and citizens of Central Florida as well. It would be in the best
interest of both to see to it that, whatever happens withHow Shall We Grow?, the idea of working through
a genuine and inclusive community consensus regarding the future of Central Florida is held in esteem in
the formation of subsequent strategies and community visioning projects.
8/14/2019 How Shall We Grow?: a Critical Assessment of Community Visioning in Central Florida
16/16
ENDNOTES
1 Historical TV listings were obtained from the Entertainment Now blog athttp://entertainmentnow.wordpress.com/, accessed 4 April 2007
2
See Honadle, 1999 and Lauber & Brown, 2006 on the importance of context in the formation andimplementation of environmental policy. The arguments they put forth for environmental policy issues canbe applied to broader issues of community development, including the community visioning process.
3 Orange, Seminole, Lake, Volusia, Brevard, Polk and Osceola Counties are included in the visioningprocess, as are 86 municipalities.
4 Florida Senate Bill 0360, passed 1 July 2005.
5 A community workshop set to take place in Polk County was rescheduled due to a hurricane warning(Hallett, 2006).
6 Other studies utilized include the Central Florida Regional Indicators Report (2003), Naturally CentralFlorida (2004), the Central Florida Values Study (2005) and the Central Florida Social Capital Survey(2006). All are available for download at http://www.myregion.org.
7 WMFE and CBS-affiliate WKMG.