Identifying the Larger Community

Regional planning traditionally has focused on land use and how to best develop and organize multi-jurisdictional space in order to meet anticipated human demand or need within the confines of a defined geography.    In most cases the primary focus has been on hard infrastructure within the focus area, be that roads, streets, highways and bridges; airports; water and sewer; hospitals; and other publically supported facilities; but  housing, commercial and industrial development, along with green space in the form of parks also come into play. 

There is, however, another aspect of regional planning that is too often relegated to the background, that being the explanation and recognition of the socioeconomic linkages that exist within a defined region.   While planners review and analyze data to document need, they rarely put a human face on it to fully explain how multiple locations actually operate as one community.  Were they to do so on a consistent basis, the pressure of politics tied to territoriality might be relieved.  Consequently, it is important for those engaged in regional planning to grasp what Peter Senge expressed in his book The Necessary Revolution, that being:

“Collaborating is ultimately about relationships, and relationships do not thrive based on a rational calculus of costs and benefits but rather because of genuine caring and mutual vulnerability.”                            

Such a mindset lays down a path to well-functioning regions formed through interlocal agreement amongst multiple counties, cities and civic groups. 

Planning per se is about anticipating future need and opportunity, then developing ways both might be addressed.  It involves an evaluation of resources against a party’s needs and wants and occurs on a daily basis as public and private interests alike foresee tomorrow’s opportunities and deal with the challenges surrounding them.   If done in the isolation of one business or household or government, there is little need for transparency beyond the discussion group involved since they will make an independent decision.  However,

“Regional planning … is different in that it seldom is related directly to the exercise of governmental authority on a region-wide basis.  Most regional planning organizations – whether of the large multistate variety encompassing the multiple local governments in a single metropolitan area or any other contiguous community of social contacts in the daily working and living environment – are intergovernmental mechanisms.  They respond to region-wide problems in a single integrated area, but they usually report back to a variety of governments rather than to just one.  Most regional planning organizations must persuade many independent governments to act in concert if regional objectives are to be attained.” [1]  

Such organizations thus find themselves operating in the political realm of public opinion where they must explain the issues at hand; explain the potential alternatives and solutions; and only then become an advocate for a particular path that directly or indirectly benefits all concerned.  

That means regional planning is as much about consensus building as it is anything else.  As a subject, regional planning continues to invoke debate; not as much as it did in the past, but still enough to complicate and/or confuse the discussion of those trying to address issues or solve problems held in common by a defined multi-jurisdiction geography.   Part of it goes to the participants’ understanding of the subject itself, since any time representatives of multiple interests sit down at a table to discuss collective initiatives there is some degree of hesitancy when it comes to full disclosure of needs and opportunities.   What is too often the case is the group as a whole sees one party benefiting more than the others when the focus needs to be on how the collective whole is benefited. 

Then  too, the emotional idea of a jurisdiction’s territorial rights can slip in and actively fight for dominance in the minds of those involved.  Here, some participants may feel their jurisdiction should go it alone since they do not need the others to either access any given program or to develop plans resulting from that funding.  What gets lost in that type of thinking is the fact they may be making decisions that will impact their neighbors in a potentially adverse manner.  If, however, those neighbors are involved in the planning discussions ways to mitigate those impacts might be devised.  Consequently, if such thinking is not consciously recognized for what it is and set aside, discussions sometimes go nowhere for great lengths of time.   

Regional planning must therefore be about advancing relationships which promote awareness of and concern for a common community.  That community is best defined by the interdependent relationships that exist amongst multiple corporate places as seen in the daily routines of residents as they go to and from work, educate their children, consume goods and services, and socialize.  And once identified, those relationships can be used to form the collaborative partnerships necessary to target collective goals and objectives, then assign respective responsibilities regarding the hard infrastructure that serves the whole.  Those relationships can also be used to even address the socioeconomic conditions prevailing in the region, since they too impact the whole.