The public hates planners. Or at least that’s the impression one would get by attending a public meeting. Whether it’s a proposed housing development on precious open space or a new shopping center on an already-congested highway, members of the American public consistently pack the town hall to express some degree of outrage and fear.

In a country built on private property rights, how did we arrive at a point where the public genuinely fears the power of a branch of local government? And what can planners do to improve municipalities while working towards a more civil public debate?

"Leave our Town Alone"

Consider the following example:

The planning board of a small town in central New Jersey was beginning their 10 year master plan update, a process mandatory under New Jersey state law. The municipality contracted with a planning firm to conduct a visioning session, both to inform the public of a proposed change to the zoning code, and to collect feedback on potential forms of development. The proposed zoning code would extend an existing mixed-use zone over an adjacent block, currently zoned for light industry. The planners brought pictures of a range of development types and invited the public to place red or green stickers on the images to indicate their opposition or support for such a development within the township.

The content of the meeting should have been largely uncontroversial; no decisions were being made, and the affected area was very small. Yet, the climate was tense. From the public’s perspective, this meeting represented a chance to fight an authoritative force descending on their sleepy little town. The planners had arrived to unleash the bulldozers and cranes of greedy developers with the intent of turning the municipality of just a few thousand people into “another Brooklyn” as one member of the public exclaimed. Another berated the change in zoning as an effort of the United Nations to spread communism and promulgate Agenda 21.

The extreme degree of paranoia was reflected in the surveys collected at the end of the meeting. Comments such as “leave our town alone,” “keep it the way it is,” and, “we don’t want any more stores” were common and referred to an immense power perceived to be in the hands of the planners.

This example is not unique to New Jersey, and it highlights two key factors driving the cycle of contention: the hubris of planners in pushing grand visions of the future, and decades of strict land-use regulation. Both have played an essential role in encouraging a sense of fear and mistrust between planners and the public. Both must be addressed in the pursuit of a stronger city.