The RhodeMap RI draft economic development plan is currently in a public comment period. This week, Mike Stenhouse published highly critical remarks about the initiative, and Greg Gerritt has also expressed critical views about the plan on his blog, Prosperity for RI.
Here are observations about Stenhouse's op ed in the Providence Journal, October 20, 2014, "Our land, our rights, our government"
I give paragraph-by-paragraph comments on Mike Stenhouse's Providence Journal article, whose topic is RhodeMapRI. I am glad he drew attention to this initiative. But I think the Providence Journal, when it chooses to publish an op ed like this, should also be covering the RhodeMapRi Economic Development Plan more comprehensively, do some fact checking, and inform the public about the actual background of this initiative. It would be great if more Rhode Islanders read at least the executive summary and weighed in on the plan during the comment period this month.
PARAGRAPH 1: The American Dream" has had many meanings over the centuries. The top hit in a Google search on the term is a Wikipedia article, which begins: "The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States, a set of ideals in which freedom includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, and an upward social mobility achieved through hard work. In the definition of the American Dream by James Truslow Adams in 1931, 'life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement' regardless of social class or circumstances of birth...." The idea that it means "ownership of land and a home, with a white picket fence around the yard" emphasizes a suburban, post-1945 version of the American Dream -- although there ARE plenty of white picket fences in Rhode Island's cities today, even in Providence neighborhoods.
Is RhodeMapRI really about "land and home ownership and white picket fences"?
PARAGRAPH 2: "...local government is better government... land-use and zoning decisions are best made by locally elected officials...." Most Rhode Islanders would agree about keeping things local. We are intensely aware of "local" to the point of naming the village or neighborhood we live in rather than the town or city. But the entire state of Rhode Island is smaller than more than 100 counties in the United States. Rhode Island is about half the size of Los Angeles (or a third the size if you include the area of Narragansett Bay). So statewide planning in these days of globalization is not ill-advised. RhodeMapRI is a plan developed by the Rhode Island Division of Planning and Development. Because of our size, statewide planning in Rhode Island IS local planning. The RI Division of Planning reports to the governor, an elected official.
The groups involved in RhodeMapRI are listed here (http://rhodemapri.org/about/):
"The lead member is the Rhode Island Division of Planning, representing the State Planning Council, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the region. There are six additional state and quasi‐state agencies in the Consortium: Rhode Island Housing, Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, Rhode Island Department of Transportation, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation and Rhode Island Department of Health.
"The Consortium also includes nine municipalities, comprising 52% of the State’s population. These municipalities are the cities of Providence, Warwick, Pawtucket, Cranston, East Providence and Newport and the towns of North Kingstown, Westerly and Burrillville.
"The Consortium also includes 10 community based organizations and businesses, the Rhode Island Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Grow Smart Rhode Island, Rhode Island Legal Services, AARP-Rhode Island, Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Rhode Island (AICU), Community Action Partnership of Providence, Housing Works Rhode Island, Newport County Chamber of Commerce, Rhode Island Black Business Association, and Save the Bay who have the capacity to engage a diverse representation of the general population and have the proven ability to work with units of local government and the MPO to advance sustainability in Rhode Island. Additionally, the Consortium has two university members, the University of Rhode Island and Roger Williams University. Finally, five Social Equity Advisory Committee members have seats on the Consortium."
PARAGRAPH 3:
"Urban planning can be an effective tool.... planners should attempt to balance public benefit against potential loss of property rights.... decisions are best made by local officials, accountable to their community."
Among the groups (listed above) that developed RhodeMapRI there are many people who "are accountable to their community." It is also reasonable to rely on professionals in state-level administrative departments and at URI and RWU to work out policy proposals. Nine municipalities included suburbs and a rural community, so this initiative is not cities versus suburbs. Many Rhode Islanders would feel some connection with one or another of the groups involved in RhodeMapRI.
And we should note that there has been an open process for more than a year. Public comment has been sought repeatedly and there have been public meetings going back to August 5, 2013 (http://rhodemapri.org/events/). The Providence Journal had an announcement about the August 2013 meetings on August 3, 2013. This has hardly been a secret. In West Greenwich, which is not one of the nine municipalities in the consortium, the town planning board was discussing RhodeMapRI in September 2013. http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/4290/2013/147826.pdf It is likely all the planning boards in the state knew about this. If the public didn't know much about it, it's because they are not paying attention to the public business.
PARAGRAPH 4:
"...the federal government has recently been pushing and funding a centralized approach.... In creating regional planning entities funded by federal grants, and run by unelected ideologues accountable to no one, this approach turns the local planning process on its head."
Wait a minute. This is full of negative implications that should be questioned. The federal government funds many things: there are farm subsidies, gas and oil subsidies, highway subsidies, among others. This was not pushed on Rhode Island. For Rhode Island to get this HUD grant, Rhode Islanders had to APPLY for this grant. Page 60 of the 108-page application lists 19 entities that promised to supply matching funds (a requirement of being awarded the grant) including 8 RI cities and towns. The application includes letters from the 19 entities, and the municipal ones are signed by town planners, and even a mayor and a city manager. To say that this does not involve local planners and responsible officials is inaccurate. (http://rhodemapri.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Rhode-Island-Sustainable-Communities-2011-Complete-Application.pdf)
RhodeMapRI has been run by the RI Division of Planning, which has been providing guidance to local planning departments for at least 30 years. This initiative is to be coordinated with all of Rhode Island's comprehensive planning efforts. Rhode Islanders should spend some time reading up on the background documents at the Division of Planning's website. Note: "Rhode Island has a reciprocal system of land use planning whereby the State sets broad goals and policies through the State Guide Plan and municipalities express local desires and conditions through the development of community comprehensive plans." http://www.planning.ri.gov/statewideplanning/compplanning/
Is the RI Division of Planning a group of "idealogues"?
PARAGRAPH 5
"In 2012 Rhode Island became the first state to formally cede a major portion of its economic development and planning rights to the federal government..." This is a very strange way of looking at this situation. Have we also "ceded" control to the federal government for oversight of highway construction whenever Rhode Island has accepted federal highway funds?
"...a ... plan that advances a 'social equity agenda that considers private-property ownership to be unfair." Please give specific evidence for this. I am not aware that there is a necessary conflict between private individuals owning property and social justice.
"This agenda incorporates radical elements from the environmentalist and 'social justice' movements...." What exactly is radical about RhodeMapRI? Please see Greg Gerritt's comments at the end of this post.
"...even to the extent where racial quotas could be implemented to determine who will be allowed to live in certain cities and towns." Please provide evidence. This sounds like fear mongering. Do you really think that the Rhode Island's professional planners want to control who lives where? Do you think the AARP and the Newport Chamber of Commerce will agree to something like that?
PARAGRAPH 6:
"...a little-known plan..." As stated above there has been extensive publicity about RhodeMapRI for more than a year. Their virtual open house page documents their outreach efforts. http://rhodemapri.org/rhodemap-virtual-open-house/ They just weren't giving out free tickets to the Red Sox or Patriots games, so perhaps not everyone paid attention.
"...is being aggressively advanced behind the scenes..." Not really. They finally got your attention after numerous tries for more than a year. And they have been trying to get input for all of that time, and now it's time to wrap up the work.
..."cozily worded..." How should it be worded? RhodeMapRI is supposed to be "a coordinated and forward-looking effort by the state to make Rhode Island a better place to live and work." Most of us would be fine with that if this plan actually did that.
..."experience with similar plans..." (= Westchester County Agenda 21 in Paragraph 8?) Rhode island is unique. Whatever they did elsewhere, it won't happen the same way here. Rhode Island is so compact that we can do things here that cannot work elsewhere.
"...planning should never supersede the rights of private citizens or the authority of local governments." Where is the evidence that RhodeMapRI actually will do this?
PARAGRAPH 7:
"The goals... are to force development of high-density 'walkable' communities that meet radical social equity standards...."
"...radical..." again. From whose point of view is social equity "radical"? If we were to look into "grow smart" ideas of walkable communities, they would include places like Warren, RI, which developed before the advent of motor vehicles, and where residents in and near the town center can go to banks, stores, dry cleaners, churches, and theaters without needing a car. Lots of us are fed up with sitting in traffic and would like to live in a place where we could get what we need without the hassle of traffic and parking. And many Rhode Islanders cannot afford cars, or are elderly or disabled or too young to drive. Social equity concerns including them in planning considerations, along with car owners. Car ownership is heavily subsidized by the federal government, we should remember, because of federal highway funding.
PARAGRAPHS 8, 9 and following bullets:
"...regional sustainable planning acolytes..." Acolytes are followers. Our professional planners in Rhode Island are leaders themselves.
"...slip their agendas through..." They've knocked themselves out trying to involve the public. Could they have done better? Maybe. But they are not out to slip something through.... That is disrespectful to our professional planners.
By the way, there are several implied possibilities in the article, that are not necessarily realistic outcomes of RhodeMapRI. Mr. Stenhouse in these paragraphs says "acolytes often slip their agendas through..." "...problems...could be..." Readers can note other implied negative outcomes that have no evidence to support them. The article is written to raise fears rather than to inform and contribute to a public discussion.
Then there is a list of alarming possibilities screaming "ceding...sovereignty..." "giving up much local authority..." "wasted money," "overly-idealistic urban agenda that would depress our economy...," "Transportation restrictions..." and so on. Another "radical" is thrown in, concluding with a threat of "liberal eminent domain laws."
Another apparently alarming idea to Mr. Stenhouse is "regional" planning. Of course there is much regional planning that goes on, and Rhode Islanders participate in many ways. It is not advisable for tiny Rhode Island to make plans that do not take into account what is happening in nearby New England states as well as the entire Northeast. It is essential for regional issues to be addressed, and our state leaders attend to these matters. However, in the RhodeMapRI application, the state itself is the "region" ("The lead member is the Rhode Island Division of Planning, representing the State Planning Council, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the region." - quoted and referenced also above).
Before anyone should criticize the plan, they should read EVERYTHING about RhodeMapRI as well as familiarize themselves with the longstanding statewide planning process that all local RI town and city governments have participated in for decades. Please consider what is so bad about making it possible for ALL Rhode Islanders to have a chance at the American Dream, which is what social equity is about!
THE LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS:
"Who are these people who have written this massive and intrusive plan?" Well, hundreds of your fellow Rhode Islanders, from the looks of it on the RhodeMapRI website.
"...why just two public sessions in the final week of a major election campaign?" Because these are the last of many public sessions, planned and announced long in advance, for developing the plan; and RhodeMapRI is separate from the election campaign. See page 11 of the work plan, published in April 2012: http://rhodemapri.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Work-Plan-Final-Sustainable-Rhode-Island-4-13-12.pdf
Timeline: June 2012 through Fall 2012 - RFP preparation/consultant search
Fall 2012 – Winter 2014 – Planning Work
Goal : Create a State Economic Development Plan that is fully coordinated with the other
components of the RPSD and other local economic development plans and initiatives that
support the RPSD for review and approval by the State Planning Council.
There has been a public comment period since September 2014: (http://rhodemapri.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ED-Plan-Public-Hearing-Notice.pdf).
The RI Division of Planning is following its schedule, and it is on time.
ONE MORE OBSERVATION ABOUT "SOCIAL EQUITY AND RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM"
There are those among so-called "environmentalists" who are not at all happy with the conclusions of RhodeMapRI. Greg Gerritt, a member of the Green Party and an outspoken environmentalist who is widely recognized for his dedication to environmental causes, published a critique of the RhodeMapRI Economic Development Plan in his blog.
Greg's view is that, far from RhodeMapRI reflecting a so-called radical environmental and social justice agenda, it is much more in line with corporate interests and the status quo. Greg points to substantial issues that he thinks should be addressed by RhodeMapRI.
Here are excerpts from Gerritt's long critique:
"...I participated in the RhodeMap RI process from start to finish, attending hearings, open houses, and work sessions, commenting on the blog, sending in questions, so I know what happened there, and I hoped some of what was developed by the community outside of the corporate mainstream would be reflected in the new State of RI Economic Development Plan now under review. My friends tell me on cursory reading that it captured some of what was said, but I have read the report as well as sat through many work-sessions and was sorely disappointed by what it left out. The best thing that can be said about the plan is that it appropriately updates the boiler plate on education, smart regulations, climate change, and the like...
"...I attended the opening of the new DEM Permitting Application Center... It is the new one stop shopping. ... The process for getting permits should be straightforward, transparent, and move expeditiously. It is the right thing to do. But listening to some of the speakers you could tell they still had not gotten how much damage they do by building buildings in inappropriate places with no thoughts to cumulative impacts including climate change and flooding, nor do they consider the global limits to growth or the damage sprawl does to communities....
"...To its credit, the report pays more attention to ecology, climate change, and agriculture than previous plans, but it still mostly paying lip service and not rocking the boat. An acknowledgment that the people of the Earth are using 140% of the biologically renewable resources each year, with the resulting deforestation, soil depletion, climate change, and disappearing fisheries and biodiversity would provide a much better context for an honest discussion and the need for Rhode Island to be a responsible partner on the planet, allowing those with little to catch up while simultaneously healing more of the planet so it can feed us....
"...[GG quotes from RhodeMapRI:] 'Cumbersome Regulations: The cost and time burden of meeting regulatory requirements at the state and local level, and a lack of consistency in enforcement is a common theme. From small business owners, to housing advocates, to developers, to many average Rhode Islanders, there is a perception that regulations are holding the economy back. The most common desire was to see regulations streamlined, coordinated, and enforced consistently and in a timely fashion.'
"GG: We all want an efficient system, which is why on some level the new DEM system for permits is cool. But this is not what is holding back the economy. And this still will not stop the attack on regulations. It is the desire to protect ecosystems and communities that is under attack. The hard to use regulations attack is a ruse. They are still trying to strangle the government so that protecting people goes out of fashion and communities can not protect themselves from their depredations...."
IN CONCLUSION:
Mike Stenhouse thinks that RhodeMapRI is some sneaky radical plan for social equity. Greg Gerritt thinks it does very little to improve social justice.
Why don't we all read the draft economic plan, after reviewing the background information on RhodeMapRI if we didn't participate until now, and reflect on what our Common Good is as Rhode Islanders, as Americans, and as human beings on Planet Earth? Then let's have a reasonable discussion of substantive issues. The plan is for ALL Rhode Islanders, not just the people we know and like. We need to learn to talk things out better and act for the benefit of the entire state's population.
Comments