On each other’s team: thoughts on the relationship between planner and advocate

With a little help from our friends … By Anonymous

The rise of online advocacy communities has given Auckland’s civic discourse a potent and much-needed shot in the arm. While the seriousness of our housing and transport situation has of course driven a lot of newfound interest in planning issues (necessity has perhaps been the mother of invention in this regard), there is no doubting that advocacy groups have succeeded in drawing attention to planning issues and effecting positive change. The numbers are as impressive — the Greater Auckland blog gets 5,000 page views daily, Generation Zero attracted 10,000 submissions on the Skypath resource consent, and at least one top journo (Simon Wilson) has felt compelled to cover civic issues in depth on a full-time basis online.

There’s a sense of urgency and impatience to the debate and commentary within these communities which is both heartening to me as a citizen, and deeply frustrating as somebody that works at the coalface of a lot of the issues being discussed. While commendably evidence-based and civil, some commentary tends towards an ‘us and them’ narrative in which the advocates have all the answers; and the planners are too thick to understand those answers. While planners (and their professional body) shouldn’t be immune to critique, my experience is that planners as individuals are reasonably switched on, and are in the game for the right reasons. Moreover, most planners are pretty keen on causes like better public transport and density ‘done well’ — in fact, I like to think they’re conventional wisdom.

Auckland’s Waterfront — most would agree objectively that this is a ‘good’ development; but effective planning and advocacy recognises that ‘good’ is an inherently subjective/contested concept.

There are a few good reasons why some advocates seemingly don’t see this side of the profession, and I think a better and more productive relationship between planners and advocates can be fostered with some critical self-reflection on what their respective roles should be. In particular, I’d make the following points:

1. Advocacy is a vital part of effective planning practice, but it’s not a planner’s job to be an advocate.

While some would argue planners deal in values rather than facts, the reality is that the whole planning system is premised on the idea of the planner as value-neutral technocrat. That leaves us both vulnerable to status quo bias in our institutions, and makes us uniquely unsuited to affecting institutional change. Put another way — if planning is an ideological battle, then planners are fighting with an arm tied behind their back.

Volunteer or otherwise, it is the job of advocates to help bring planning kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Advocates shouldn’t be moaning at the inability of planners to do this for themselves — they should be helping us out… or somebody else will.

That brings things nicely to number two…

2. There is no such thing as a unitary public interest to which planning can objectively work towards.

Too often, online advocacy speaks uncritically in the language of a unitary public interest — “we”, “us”, “good” — and assumes that everybody is in agreement. Dissenting views are not always kindly dealt to (though I concede that the mob mentality and the echo chamber are endemic to social media as a whole).

The reality is that the very concept of ‘progress’ is subjective and up for debate. Lots of critiques of planning argue that planning action should be guided by intersubjective communication — i.e. shit-tonnes of debate and consultation. In this context, online advocacy is hugely important — but it should be up for the debate, not allergic to it. Ultimately, you’re only ever one side of any debate within the broader context of civil society. Fight your corner hard but fair.

3. Having the ‘correct’ or ‘best’ idea isn’t always enough to see it implemented.

When speaking truth to power, I would strongly recommend that advocates concentrate their efforts on speaking truth to those that actually wield power.

Debating the detailed merits of a given proposal with a planner is often preaching to the converted. Politicians and the big interest groups should be in the crosshairs more often than the bureaucrats whose expertise may count for little in the face of a vocal NIMBY group, a sizeable campaign contribution, or indeed the very construction of the role of the planner itself (see #1).

Planners perform a vital public interest role as the intermediaries between enabling and regulating development. Yet if public interest is an inherently contested concept, planning for a given outcome becomes an ideological battle for hearts and minds. Where planners are themselves confined to value-neutral technocracy, effective advocacy is essential to achieving ‘good’ outcomes.

Some might argue that a ‘dependency’ on unpaid activists could be constructed as an indictment on the competence of the professionals. This is an easy view to hold with planning as a popular scapegoat for all of society’s problems, but is ultimately an unhelpful one. In reality, we all have a lot to learn — we need to listen to one another, think before we Tweet, and play the ball and not the man.