Planning for the Stimulus Package

PLANNING FOR THE STIMULUS PACKAGE
© Trevor Burrowes

The hoped for opportunity for a paradigm shift in American governance appears imminent, and to center on recovery spending. Pundits rarely disagree that the economic crisis is so severe as to mandate massive government spending to address it. And the problem seems less about how much spending is required – a trillion dollars and up is often mentioned – but how to direct the spending.

Mr. Obama often emphasizes the necessary convergence of greening and economic development, but it is not clear how this will be made manifest, or how it will garner the needed public support. The best bang for the economic buck must be coupled with that for the environmental buck. As I try to assimilate what the pundits recommend, infrastructure spending looms large. What I never see discussed, however, is planning. But planning offers an ideal methodology for convergence of environmental, economic and other issues.

In my previous blog, I wrote: “Comprehensive in scope, and geared to the development of synergies between issues, city General Plans and other kinds of geopolitical land-area plans offer fruitful ways to begin (the) integrative process. General Plans are often comprised of elements that include: infrastructure, economic development, land use, housing, circulation, conservation, open space, health policy, transportation, scenic routes, air quality, parks and recreation, arts and culture, design, noise, safety, historic preservation, among others. And the law usually requires that there be internal consistency between elements.”

“Beyond local planning lie regional plans. This from the city of Los Angeles: ‘When preparing or revising a general plan, cities and counties should carefully analyze the implications of regional plans for their planning area. General Plans are required to include an analysis of the extent to which the general plan's policies, standards, and proposals are consistent with regional plans.’ ‘Regional plans…provide the legal basis for allocating state and federal funds, as in the case of transportation and water quality facilities. Other regional plans, such as air quality plans, spell out measures which local governments may institute in order for the region to meet state and federal standards.’”

I thought about the need for a rating system that pulled economic-stimulus/green funding toward geopolitical areas which were or might be promoting sustainable policies through planning. I did at least find a simple but compelling rating system.

Writing for Yale environment 360 , Richard Conniff, a 2007 Guggenheim Fellow and a National Magazine Award-winning writer, says, “We need a clear break from business as usual, and the economic stimulus package is a perfect opportunity to test the idea of a green scorecard for smart spending. It would consist of a checklist of objectives, many of them necessarily economic: Does this proposal create American jobs? Does it foster industries where the United States can take a decisive lead? Does it have a short payback period? Does it offer a good return on investment?”

“But green criteria would carry equal weight: Does it decrease our carbon footprint? Does it encourage energy independence? Does it improve air quality? Does it address water quality and supply issues? Does it encourage smart growth rather than sprawl? Does it protect wildlife and other natural resources?”

Conniff’s proposal is one of the most useful I’ve seen. Of course a point system for economic and environmental criteria would be efficient! But as the article and comments about it confirm, the scorecard process could get extremely complicated.

Conniff himself writes: “Given the influence of lobbyists and the electoral cycle at the federal level, it might ordinarily be naïve to propose any kind of scorecard, much less a green one. Members of Congress will resist having their pet projects held to the numbers.” And his readers’ comments point to the difficulty of forecasting the downside of seemingly hopeful breakthroughs (like ethanol). One comment: “It is hard if not impossible to determine what the true value/cost of a new project would be when our current economic system almost completely disregards environmental value.”

Nevertheless, a compelling grand strategy that grabs the public’s imagination will soften the resistance of Congress to a joint economic and green scorecard. And while bright new ideas like ethanol need to be viewed with skepticism, there are planning-based concepts that are well tested, and proven to be effective, for both economic and environmental betterment.

Trail construction is a good example. Supported or mandated by area plans, it would provide jobs that run the gamut of skill levels, and greatly enhance pedestrian and bike commuting. This in turn would be a cost-effective boon to environmental and public health. But trail construction is only the tip of the iceberg where well-tested planning-based environmental and economic recovery solutions are concerned.

The scorecard idea should apply primarily to geopolitical-area plans, such as city "General Plans," county, metropolitan, and regional plans, etc. How does supporting specific projects help area plans be sustainable economically and environmentally? How does funding help one area's plan cohere with that of another? The more plan-oriented stimulus funding is the more bang for the buck and effectiveness it will deliver.