Planning Ethics: Two Points to Ponder Conflicts in Public and Private Planning Ethics	.
Mary Anne G. Bowie	Author Info

Abstract

From time to time in jurisdictions, planners decide that bending the rules by interpreting them to reduce actual impact on the property is helping the public interest. These planners think that creating verbal administrative waivers or writing memos that would suggest instant variance approvals will reduce the impact and therefore reduce the compensation due to the property owner. In their opinion saving the public agency money is ethical and is their responsibility. In fact such an action only complicates the eminent domain process and results in a greater expenditure of public funds because of the increased required legal analysis. The impact on the property has not changed; instead confusion regarding the impact has been created. Land use regulations are adopted to protect the public's interest. Twisting their interpretation is not ethical, especially within the framework of an eminent domain lawsuit. In these cases the planner has confused the public's interest with the interest (budget) of the public agency.

AICP planners should provide leadership and promote good planning principles. AICP planners should not be wimps; instead they should promote and encourage decisions based upon good planning principles. It is never easy to be a leader and educator when the group being educated is as diverse as any group of citizens and politicians is. When a planner sinks to not making any waves, to just keeping that job, to just pleasing that politician, then it is time to move over and move out. In unity there is strength and several AICP planners can join together and make a difference. If it weren't possible, then we wouldn't be as far as we are in regards to environmental protection regulations which have only been around for twenty-five years.

I challenge all AICP planners to promote good planning principles that will make even further differences. Examples of the principles that I believe we should support include: returning one way streets to two way, allowing second units, and promoting home based businesses.

In most cities and small towns one way streets deaden adjacent land uses. How can we promote a return to two way streets? In most subdivisions a second unit is prohibited on a single family lot and yet the second unit can provide affordable housing for elderly, twenty-somethings and others. It can also provide rental income to the property owner. How can we recreate this affordable housing pattern? According to a national magazine some 40 million home businesses are in existence. Home businesses help create daytime activity in otherwise empty residential areas, utilizing resources and providing security to the are. I would wager that the majority of the home businesses are outside the land use regulation framework and probably officially illegal. How can we make them legal and support and promote these businesses which are the strength of our economy? We need to create land uses which support our culture, not regulations which stifle it. And the responsibility to create these land uses and promote good planning principles lies with the AICP designated planner.