Special Planning Issue Penny Wise and Penny Foolish? Searching for a Light Ahead in Duluth's City Planning Crisis by Jerry Kimball, retired head of the former Duluth Physical Planning Division I find myself in undesired territory these days-territory in which I'm often commenting on the lack of a balance in City Hall's planning and development role. My entire career was spent in promoting planning, so I find my current situation somewhat depressing. Whenever I promise myself I won't write another questioning article, however, someone points out the need for me to continue to serve a "loyal opposition" role, to clarify where the promise of potential is being eroded. And so on these pages I jump into the fray yet again, in the hope that I can help. I believe that Duluth's current City administration is penny wise and MANY poundS foolish-and that their miscalculation is costing the city dearly. Speakers at Duluth's recent Housing Summit, for example, cautioned that housing development is being hindered in part by the lack of timely building permits. Over the last few years, a substantial number of building inspectors have been cut from the city budget. It could be argued that the cost of more inspectors would be recovered quickly with taxes generated by more new housing units. Elimination of city planners is also a disinvestment. Returning as well to an adequately staffed planning department would be a wise investment. Duluth's Physical Planning Division has been eliminated, with its few remaining, overworked planners reassigned to the Urban Development Division. Unfortunately, though every City Council candidate during the fall election acknowledged the problem with the city's lack of planning, the Duluth budget for 2002 shows no improvement in funding. In fact, the last of the long-time physical city planners, bill majewski, is retiring this month. What's the gist of all of this? I believe Mayor Doty views planning as nothing more than a hindrance to development. But, Instead of greasing the path to easy development, this dismantling of a balanced planning function has done the opposite: It has slowed development. One reason we now see so many land-use controversies, lawsuits, and referendums, for example, is that almost all proposed developments that arrive at City Hall find their way to the City Council. Councilors then have the unenviable task of asking the tough questions. In cities with strong professional planners, the "clinker" proposals are filtered out long before they have to be taken up by the City Council. It is perhaps in our neighborhoods that we most frequently see the problems caused by this situation. The inclination on the administration's part to approve virtually every project has caused tension between the city and neighborhood groups. Residents often express a lack of trust in city government and say they want more openness in the process and more balance in land-use decisions. Duluth's supposed "image" of being "anti-development" is erroneously faulted to neighborhood citizens and smart-growth or sustainable-development groups, when in reality it is the lack of up-front planning and public input that is the true culprit. There have been too many examples of planning mistakes that have harbored citizen mistrust. The city has missed deadlines on projects, for example, thus forcing the automatic approval of permits for those projects, as with the demolition disposal facility in Gary New Duluth and the Westgate apartment. Likewise, both sides of the Spirit Mountain dispute have wasted time and money debating the golf course issue as a result of the city's lack of knowledge about grant limitations imposed on Spirit Mountain lands. Mistrust of the city administration was perhaps at its most severe after the Community Unit Plan (C.U.P.) was misused to allow the commercial Opus development in an area still zoned residential. The City Council later eliminated the C.U.P. (originally intended to encourage creative mixed-use development) and asked that the language of the C.U.P. be tightened to guard against future misuse. City staff, however, is pushing for loosening the language even further, so redrafting of the plan languishes, as do some good housing proposals that would require mixed-use zoning. Another symptom of not having a viable planning function is the inability to fully access grant resources to impliment good creative public developments like the rest of bayfront park. But how about that light ahead? I'm thrilled with the creative spirit I saw at Duluth's recent Economic Summit. I find it hopeful as well that the city administration brought in the talented Waterfront Center people to help us sort out our varying visions for Bayfront Park. It's imperative, however, that the mayor listen to them better than he did to his Bayfront Task Force. The willingness to listen-and to respect and act upon what is heard-is at the root of tackling all the difficulties I've chronicled here. As we head into this new year, perhaps a good resolution for us all would be to make sure that we continue to be willing to listen. And that we continue as well to demand to be heard. These articles are retained on the web for historical interest and do not necessarily reflect the views or goals of DPPA today.

[Index] [Next article]