Many years ago when the City of Seattle was going through one of its periodic urges to plan itself Comprehensively, and when I still worked there as a Junior Planner (in fact there was a title of Senior Planner) I was out fot a drive with one of the Seniors to examine sites for which entitlements had been sought.
This was one very smart guy and out of the blue he said
"You know how I'd organize the new Comp Plan?"
"Duh. No"
"Around urban design. It's the core of the political problems faced by the City."
"Oh."
At that time I really had no idea what "urban design" was --- (I was 23) --- but I was loathe to admit it to one of the Seniors.
"How come?" I asked sagely.
"Well I think that most Comp Plans try to be 'all things to all people' and spread themselves too thin. I think we need a binding core around which to focus."
"Oh. I see."
Well I really didn't but the basic meme (I have been waiting to use that blogosphere term for a while) of "a binding core around which to focus" struck me as exceedingly astute.
So I have been observing Comp Plans for a few years now (we do one every few years in Seattle --- it's good exercise) and my conclusion is that while I think urban design very important, (surprise!), I would organize a new Comp Plan around "Personnel Policy."
This post here by Michael Jennings nice illustrates my point that personnel practices are destiny (or at least prospect) when it comes to effective delivery of services.
Recent Comments