Defining Public Interest

7/30/2019 Defining Public Interest

1/10

Defining Public Interest through Part icipation

Jamie Ferr is

James Scot t

Publ ic Administ rat ion 5539

13 October 2011


2/10

Ferris 1

A str ict plural is t rat ionale suggests and assumes that al l c i t izens

should, can and do have opportuni t ies and resources avai lable to

faci l i tate par t icipat ion and inclusion in the pol i t ical system in order to

reach some sort of real izat ion of the publ ic interest . The concept of

the publ ic interest implies a vaguely universal set of needs and ideals .

As Greg Lloyd of the School of Town and Regional Planning atthe Universi ty of Dundee, Scot land states , the concept and

art iculat ion of the publ ic interest is not only crucial , i t i s a poorly

defined concept in pol i t ical thinking. The publ ic interest involves a

range of issues around pol i t ical thinking, legal theory, welfare

economics and mediat ion (2006).

Ernest Alexander of the Universi ty of Wisconsin fur ther

emphasizes this point : Rather than a clear ly defined object ive, the

publ ic interest is a normative ideal that includes both substant ive

values and procedural aspectsSubstant ive values may be derived

from a nat ions founding documents , or fundamental

lawsProcedural aspects of the publ ic interest in a democracy seek

to enhance democrat ic accountabi l i ty by consent of the governed, the

responsiveness of publ ic off icials to the governed, and the appropriate

use of sovereign power (2004, p.106) .

The needs of communit ies are var ious and many and often


3/10

Ferris 2

poli t ical lyand emotional lycharged. I t i s clear that planning is

nei ther neutral nor free of pol i t ics as the rat ional model suggests; in

fact i t i s vi tal that planners understand and are able to engage in the

pol i t ical systems and processes so that they may bet ter understand and

ut i l ize them to accomplish posi t ive outcomes within them. This is

t rue also in the at tempt to f ind and meet the needs of the publ ic

interest through publ ic involvement .

Appeals to the publ ic interest typical ly work best when they

invi te par t icipants in a decision-making process to prove that

their par t icipat ion and contr ibut ion take into account al l

relevant interests affected by a decision. Not al l

par t icipants wil l agree, but the presence of due process (or i t

could be a code, or a protocol or a mediat ing inst i tut ion or a

report ing requirement) promotes a del iberat ive process of

open discussion about the publ ic- interest impacts of potent ial

decisions. (Uhr, 2005 qtd. in Wells , 2007, p. 2) .

This process is imperat ive in the endeavor to def ine the publ ic interest .

However , determining what wil l benefi t the publ ic in general (as

dist inct f rom governments or interest groups) is a perpetual s t ruggle,

Loyd states , the publ ic interest is of ten contrasted with the pr ivate

or individual interest , under the assumption that what is good for

society may not be good for a given individual and vice versa. The

publ ic interest is bound up with the prevai l ing and inheri ted cul ture in

society (2006).


4/10

Ferris 3

The role, necessi ty and even the val idi ty of planning are of ten

cri t icized as imposing too much on the l ives and r ights of property

owners. Most supporters of planning ci te , among other reasons, the

need to account for market fai lures of the government to properly

ensure equi table access to publ ic goods as just i f icat ions for planning

(Brooks, 2002; Alexander , 2004). That being so, the rat ionale behind

planning is not just physical ly accommodating needs but discovering

and addressing the social needs of a community.

Publ ic par t icipat ion is an important par t of creat ing a

comprehensive plan in many ci t ies . As Kel ly and Becker (2000)

suggest , c i t izens should, at least , [be] ent i t led to comment on the

plan at a formal publ ic hearing before the planning commission adopts

i t (59) . Ideal ly, they suggest , ci t izens should help the planning

body to: ident i fy important issues on which the planning process wil l

funct ion, ident i fy s t rengths and weaknesses of the community, develop

a vision or goals for the community, comment on al ternat ive plan

scenarios and various aspects of the plans as i t evolves and comment

formally a publ ic hearing before the planning commission adopts the

plan (60) .

Director of the Insti tute of Urban and Regional Development at the

University of California, Berkeley, Professor Judith Innes (1996)

suggests that consensus building is a helpful , if not necessary aspect of


5/10

Ferris 4

comprehensive planning. This strategy is a method of group

deliberation that brings togethera significant range of individuals

chosen because they represent those with differing stakes in a problem

(461). She proposes that because a comprehensive plan is to be a long-

range policy statement on the future of a ci ty, involving all s takeholders

will account for even the weakest members of the community and speak

for the agreed-upon public interest . Innes states that by choosing to be

inclusive in the planning process, the proposals gain legit imacy (1996,

465).

In this view, ci t izen part icipat ion is an undeniably central aspect of

planning, yet i ts role is of ten debated. While i t i s accepted that

ci t izen part icipat ion is necessary, on a bureaucrat ic level , many see

the process as t ime-consuming and minimally useful (Grengs, 2002, p.

171) . Addit ional ly, cr i t ics of large-scale publ ic involvement suggest

that the process is rarely inclusive and unl ikely to actual ly involve

tradi t ional ly under-represented minori ty groups. In that case, any

kind of assumption of the publ ic interest to come out of the process

would exclude or misrepresent the needs of those communit ies .

Minority groups have historically been excluded from decision-

making in the U.S. Planning, largely a practice born out of poli t ics and

governmental structure has been particularly exclusive to minorit ies, and

in many cases, both historically and presently, has been organized in


6/10

Ferris 5

such a manner as to reinforce racist policies and practices on an

insti tutional level (Stafford & Ladner, 1969). Racism is at tr ibuted to

the powerlessness of black communities and is perhaps more rampant

at present insti tutionally than before when more overt and individualized

(Stafford & Ladner, 1969).

Over t ime, since the passing of such inclusive legislation as the

Civil Rights Amendment (1964), polices that have shaped urban (and

majority minority) areas have often served the interests of white

Americans and those in who hold the power. Suburbanization and urban

renewal projects placed plight on the urban cores across the country and

created pockets of minorit ies and the poor in once-affluent areas. In

some places, advocate planners and consensus-builders have sought to

include minority interestsif not al l interest groupsin the planning

process, suggesting that a ci ty is only as strong as i ts weakest member,

or at least should consider the needs o f those groups.

However, as Wells (2007) explains, i t i s not the interest of one

or a few groups that creates posi t ive resul ts ;

The not ion of a s ingular publ ic interest seems perverse in

a society character ised [s ic] by social and spat ial diversi ty,

when we are al legedly considering the interests of future

as wel l as present generat ions. The suggest ion that thereis one and only one correct formulat ion of the publ ic

interest has led to a bel ief in some quarters that there is no

such thing as the publ ic interest , that i t i s a f ict ion, or a

phantom that is used by interest groups as a smokescreen

for sectoral or pr ivate interests (p.4-5) .


7/10

Ferris 6

Lyod (2006), on the other hand, provides an al ternat ive professional

view: i t is acknowledged that the publ ic interest is greater than the

sum total of al l the individual interests in society. This is not an easy

task, but i t does s i t a t the core of contemporary s tate-market-civi l

relat ions. He offers a different chal lenge for addressing the publ ic

interest issue; changing pol i t ical ideas, the remorseless r ise of

individual ism, commercial ism, mater ial ism and expectat ions at large

have t ransformed the concept of the publ ic interest .

To that end, Wells (2007) suggests that there is of ten

disagreement about whom in the general populat ion is the relevant and

whose best interests must be considered in making the decision (p.

9) .

The manner in which a ci t izen interacts in his or her community

can ref lect the cohesiveness and st ructure of a ci ty as wel l as the level

at which the publ ic interest is included in decision making. In a local

example, Kansas City, a ci ty with a complex history of segregat ion,

disenfranchisement and racial s t r i fe , developed with s t r ict , racial ly

segregat ing parameters , overcoming the separat is t mental i ty embedded

in the ci tys his tory has proven slow and diff icul t . The ci ty counci l


8/10

Ferris 7

adopted the FOCUS [Forging Our Comprehensive Urban Strategy]

plan, Kansas Citys comprehensive plan, in 1994 af ter a two-year ,

two-phase process ini t iated by the ci ty government , headed by Mayor

Emanuel Cleaver , in at tempt to address issues such as urban poverty,

bl ight , [and] shif ts in the s t ructure of our economy (City of Kansas

City, Mo, 1998). Though approximately 3000 ci t izens part icipated in

the f i rs t phase of the planning process through organized ci t izen

groups, consensus was not reachedand, in fact , was not even a goal

of the process (City of Kansas City, Mo, 1998). I t was possible for the

public to get involved, though not in a manner in which Innes would find

satisfactory. The process lacked accountabil i ty in ensuring that the

interests of commonly under-represented or excluded groups were met.

This suggests quest ions of effect iveness; is the FOCUS plan

effect ive in at taining i t s goals even having not been created out a

mutual ly agreed-upon decision making process? Are other plans,

founded more in consensus more successful in their implementat ion

and in addressing issues such as poverty and bl ight? Or perhaps a plan

can represent the best interest without reaching a consensus.

As Loyd states , there are different views on how many members of

the publ ic must benefi t f rom an act ion before i t can be declared to be

in the publ ic interest . He goes on to ask, does an act ion have to


9/10

Ferris 8

benefi t every s ingle member of society in order to be in the publ ic

interest? Can an act ion benefi t some and harm none and be considered

to be in the publ ic interest? (Loyd, 2006). Regardless , he cont inues,

there is a need to re- asser t , to re-discover the publ ic interest , to

define what we want for society at large and how land use planning

can go out and achieve i t .


10/10

Ferris 9

W orks C i t ed

A l e x a n d e r , E r n e s t R . ( 2 0 0 4 ) . C a p t u r i n g t h e P u b l i c I n t e r e s t . J o u r n a l o f P l a n n i n g

E d u c a t i o n a n d R e s e a r c h , 2 2 , 1 0 2 - 1 0 6 .

B r o o k s , M i c h a e l P . ( 2 0 0 2 ) . P l a n n i n g T h e o r y f o r P r a c t i t i o n e rs . A m e r i c a n P l a n n i n g

A ssoc ia t ion , C h icago , I l .

G r e n g s , J o e . ( 2 0 0 2 ) . C o m m u n i t y B a s e d P l a n n i n g a s a S o u r c e o f P o l i t i c a l C h a n g e .

J o u r n a l o f t h e A m e r i c a n P l a n n i n g A s s o c i a t i o n , 6 8 ( 2 ) , 1 6 5 - 1 7 8 .

I n n e s , J u d i t h . ( 1 9 9 6 ) . P l a n n i n g t h o u g h c o n s e n s u s b u i l d i n g . J o u r n a l o f t h e

A m er ican P lann ing A ssoc ia t ion , 62 (4 ) , 460-471 .

K ansas C i ty D epar tm en t o f P l ann ing and D eve lopm ent , FO C U S K ansas C i ty U rban

C ore W ork Team . (1998) . Focus p l an K ansas C i ty , M o: R e t r i eved f rom

ht tp : / /w w 4.kcm o.o rg /p l ann ing .ns f / focus /hom e .

K e l ly , Er i c D am ian . & B ecker , B a rba ra . ( 2 0 0 0 ) . C om m uni ty p l ann ing : an

i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e c o m p re h e n s i v e p l a n . J o u r n a l o f t h e A m e r ic a n I n s t i t u t e o f

P l a n n e r s , 2 5 ( 2 ) , 6 8 - 7 4 .

L o y d , G r e g . ( 2 0 0 6 ) . P l a n n i n g a n d t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n t h e m o d e r n w o r l d . S i r

P a t r i c k G e d d e s C o m m e m o ra t i v e L e c t u r e 2 0 0 6 . R o y a l T o w n P l a n n i n g

I n s t i t u t e i n S c ot l a n d a n d t h e S a l t ir e S o c i e t y , E d i n b u r g h , S c o t la n d .

S t a f f o r d , W a l t e r W . a n d L a d n e r , J o y . ( 1 9 6 9 ) . C o m p r e h e n s iv e P la n n i n g a n d Ra c i s m .

W e l l s , C a r o l y n . ( 2 0 0 7 ) . A P u b l i c I n t e r e s t F r a m e w o r k f o r P u b l i c P o l i c y

D e v e l o p m e n t : A p r o p e r t y a n d u r ba n p l a n n i n g p e r s pe c t i v e . S c h o o l o f t h e

B u i l t E n v i r o n m e n t U n i v e r s i t y o f T e c h n o l o g y , S y d n e y .

Defining Public Interest

Documents

Transcript of Defining Public Interest