 |
| [You can see the problem right here: they could only get 12 people to sit for this photo of the allegedly 21-member commission.] |
Don’t look now, but STP leadership is quietly implementing a process reform aimed at streamlining planning and development in the city. This one hit’s close to home, because it’s a widespread change to the Planning Commission, an institution where I served for nine years (2012 to 2021). At the time, that was the term limit.
In short, the proposal (Ordinance 25-79) would reduce the Commission size from 21 to 7, and dissolve all but the (unique) Transportation Committee.* All would be appointed by the mayor.
Put succinctly, I think it’s a good idea because it makes the Commission more flexible and accountable. Not to point fingers or name names, but the Commission didn’t work that well during my time. There were too many people, and we didn’t really get to know each other. We often struggled to even have a quorum. Meetings were awkward thanks to the size of the group, and changing the time from Friday mornings (either temporarily or permanently) was impossible for the same reason. The change should make the Commission effective and make its urban planning process more legible.
 |
| [A much younger me getting sworn in as a Commissioner.] |
Here were some variables we discussed:
- Higher level of commitment from members; with fewer people, more would be asked of them and they would develop greater knowledge of the different facets of planning
- Reducing quorum problems (we required 11 of out 21 to form a quorum, which proved difficult at times)
- Holding meetings in the Council chambers, with good audio and video, would improve transparency and public accessibility
- Holding meetings off-site when necessary (say to discuss an ambitious site plan or public meeting on location) would also improve transparency and public accessibility
As I recall, then Chair Rangel-Morales didn’t like the idea so it was laid aside. I recall him suggesting that it would be less representative. In my opinion, quantity does not necessarily equal quality of representation, but then again we disagreed about a lot of things.
The only downside I see is that I don’t really love having membership align with the ward boundaries. I recoil at the thought that “one member per ward” would start to shape discussions around geography, even from a de facto perspective. The point of any Planning Commission is to avoid parochial politics, the idea that you’re “representing” your geography, and to encourage instead thinking about the city as a whole.
That said, there should be folks from the East and West Sides on the Commission, from the North End and Highland and Summit Hill and West 7th and Downtown. It's a big city and those are unique areas. I guess it doesn’t matter that much, as long as the Mayor appoints people with the mandate to think citywide.
The only point I would add is that this change should come with an increase (at least a tripling?) of the stipend for commissioners time. When I began on the Commission, I received $25 per two-hour meeting, a sum that I had heard was set in the 1990s. As a broke grad student at the time, there were many times where that small check from the City was the only thing that allowed me to pay my rent. Increasing the stipend would allow more working class, younger, and diverse people to participate, and is long overdue regardless thanks to inflationary pressure.
* I was chair of this for years.
