Planners by nature tend to love what they do (more often than not anyway), but sometimes things can get tough:

  • A controversial proposal can bring a roomful of upset residents to a public hearing;
  • A looming project deadline can require very long days that extend into the wee hours; or
  • A bad day at the office brings five new variance petitions, ten irate ‘customers’ to the service counter, and two angry phone calls from your boss.

Now those are just some hypothetical examples of events that could upset a planner’s day.  Here is the story of a real-life circumstance of one Charlotte, NC area planner “ripped from the headlines“…

Mary Newsom, Associate Editor of the Charlotte (NC) Observer newspaper, recently posted an update about one planner’s unfortunate response to the pressure of politics on her blog, The Naked City.  Here’s an excerpt:

Politics vs. planning

Mayor Pat McCrory was right – but wrong – at last week’s City Council meeting when he badgered a planner about why planners removed a street connection from the Arrowood Transit Station Area plan.

He was right to question it and to say city planners should give their best professional planning judgment, not bow to political pressure. (At least, that’s what I think he was trying to point out. And I must note that many elected officials get similarly huffy when planners act oblivious to political reality. But I digress…)

But McCrory shouldn’t have hectored planner Alberto Gonzalez, who was presenting the plan. In fact, Gonzalez ended up fainting or passing out – apparently because he hadn’t eaten for some time – which made the scene even more dramatic.

The staff had originally proposed a street connection from Sharon Lakes Road to Hill Road. But neighbors in Starmount didn’t like that idea. (See my Feb. 28 column, “Aiming at where the future will be,” about connectivity.)

So, Gonzalez told the council, “We went back and took a closer look.” And they deleted that street connection. Their thinking, he said, was that such connections are made when property is developed or redeveloped, and since the property in question was relatively newly developed, it wasn’t realistic to think it would be redeveloped again any time in the near future.

McCrory wouldn’t let him off the hook. He said, in essence, “Your job is to give us the planning perspective, not make judgments about what will or won’t fly politically.” So, he continued, was your recommendation during the public hearing incorrect? The poor planner was going to have to say, “Yes, we were wrong,” or “Yes, we caved politically.”

I can’t remember at what point he blacked out. It might have been right about then.

Mary’s entire posting can be found by clicking here or visiting http://marynewsom.blogspot.com.  The Zoning Guru has a great deal of empathy for Mr. Gonzalez, having experienced similar (proverbial) slings and arrows on an empty stomach during a public meeting.  I hope he has recovered, and that the meeting was not televised!

Leave a Reply