Citizen Involvement in Land Use Planning in Jackson County, Oregon

IS IT HAPPENING? Survey May 31, 2006

page - 3 -
 

Conclusions

Productive citizen involvement at the front end of land use planning can reduce conflict.  When channels of communication are open, good ideas arise and a sense of ownership of the end product develops.  Citizens need to understand the difference between productive and destructive participation and have an obligation, equal to that of the governing body, to be informed and to participate.

• Although all the cities participating in this survey have a state-approved citizen involvement component in their comprehensive plan, none strictly adheres to the plan.

• There is a great deal of confusion about what is required under Goal 1.  All cities clearly understood that citizen involvement in land use planning is required, but they differed about how best to achieve the widespread productive involvement envisioned. 

• There is confusion among most respondents about the acronyms (“CCI” and “CAC,” etc.) and their separate responsibilities. 

• There is considerable confusion over the provisions in Goal 1 in allowing a planning commission to serve as a CCI and what duties the planning commission should or could actually perform in that capacity.

• The use of CACs in addressing land use planning issues varies considerably among the municipalities.

• Many communities do not have adequate resources to actually achieve the level of citizen involvement envisioned under Goal 1.

• Some respondents seem to genuinely desire an increase in involvement, while others seem content with perfunctory compliance. 

• There is no real enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with the Goal 1 mandates regarding citizen involvement in land use planning.

Recommendations

1. The intent behind Goal 1 should be revisited and perhaps the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) or another qualified organization could offer a Goal 1 ‘refresher course’ to governing bodies involved in land use planning.  

2. Open discussions should be held throughout the communities to brainstorm ways for increasing citizen participation with limited resources.

3. Communities need adequate funding to insure that their programs for citizen involvement in land use planning are properly administered and that outreach to citizens is active and rewarding.

4. Citizen committees, in practice, should be independent of the governing body.   Each committee should be given guidelines by staff or the governing body as to expectations and then allowed to do its work.  A member of staff should never actually serve on the committee but should be available to answer questions and provide essential information.

5. Notice of the committee meetings should be openly posted and active citizen participation sought. 

6. Minutes of the meetings should be kept and made available to the public in a timely fashion.  An increase in the use of websites as an informational tool should be explored.

7. The assistance of community organizations should be sought for training citizens in ways to productively engage in the land use planning process.

8. Goal 1 should be revised to eliminate the option of using the planning commission as a CCI.  The CCI is supposed to engage in active outreach to the citizens.  Most planning commissions are composed of volunteer citizens with a large mandate.  Commissioners simply do not have time to perform all their required duties and also administer an active citizen involvement program. 

Summary

Goal 1 is an idealistic and lofty goal, designed to be broad enough to allow for diversity of compliance strategies within the various communities.  It is clear that this flexibility is needed and that “one size does not fit all” when it comes to citizen involvement.  Unfortunately, this flexibility has resulted in confusion as to what exactly is expected.  In many cities the written plans are good, but are simply not followed.  In many cities there are inadequate resources to actually achieve the level of citizen involvement envisioned under Goal 1.

The interview process used in the LWV survey illuminated the unique way each city views Goal 1 citizen involvement requirements.  Some cities engage in mere perfunctory legal compliance, while others actively seek an involved citizenry.  Because of the diversity in city size, resources, written plans and compliance levels, the LWV committee determined the fairest method for reporting its findings would be this overview report.  We have included more details in “Additional Information.”

* * * * *

Members of the Committee:

Olena Black, LWVA; Trish Bowcock, LWVRV; Margaret Bradburn, LWVRV; Kate Culbertson, LWVA; Helen Jones, LWVA; Cynthia Lora, LWVRV; Jean Milgram, LWVRV; Carolyn Ramsey, LWVRV; Susan Rust, LWVA; Vanya Sloan, LWVA; Nancy Swan, LWVRV.

                                                                         READ ADDITIONAL INFORMATION page - 4 -