9/8 THUR 10:45 | Are Planners Communists Again?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

9/8 THUR 10:45 | Are Planners Communists Again?

on

  • 249 views

Wayne Daltry ...

Wayne Daltry
Valerie Hubbard
A.J. Catanese
Charles Pattison
Marie York
Merle Bishop

Public policymakers are portrayed in the media and by recent events as abandoning the growth management policies, and the budgetary policies, that enabled Florida to confront three decades of surging growth. While planners were recognizing
that the growth paradigm was shifting before the recession, it is the recession that demonstrated that accommodating sprawl was a failed policy. As planners then acted towards a smarter growth program, countering political forces acted otherwise, abandoning sound planning, engineering, and investment strategies for chimeras. We have been here before. Florida's Fellows will describe events when planners stood for the public good, in adverse political climates.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
249
Views on SlideShare
249
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

9/8 THUR 10:45 | Are Planners Communists Again? 9/8 THUR 10:45 | Are Planners Communists Again? Presentation Transcript

  • Are Planners Communists Again?
    Planning in a Conservative Era
  • Your Panel
    Valerie Hubbard, FAICP LEED AP, AkermanSenterfitt
    A J Catanese, Ph.D FAICP, Florida Institute of Technology
    Charles Pattison, FAICP, 1000 Friends of Florida
    Marie York, FAICP, York Solutions
    Merle Bishop, FAICP, Kimley Horne and Associates
    Wayne Daltry, FAICP, R.E.T, Moderator
  • The real purpose
    To provide some background and experience to assist planners in addressing situations wherein opponents are institutionally, as opposed to situational, opposed to “community” planning and acting for the future.
  • What We Think We Do
    “The Purpose of Planning is to enable society to assist each individual to achieve his or her fullest potential.” DrNenoSpagna, the Oldest China Hand
  • The RED herring
    And to warm us up, the Communist Manifesto and its use of the word, "Plan.“
    Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
    1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
    3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
    4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
    5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
    6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
    7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
    8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
    9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
    10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
  • The White and Blue Globe
    Agenda 21 is an action plan of the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development and was an outcome of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans directly affect the environment.
  • Yes, over the past two decades much of Agenda 21 and the rest of the Earth Summit program have been enacted piecemeal at the state and local levels, but as “Smart Growth Initiatives,” “Resilient Cities,” “Regional Visioning Projects,” “STAR Sustainable Communities,” “Green Jobs,” and “Green Building Codes.” After going through charades labeled as “local visioning,” “community in-put,” and “consensus building,” one community after another has found that it has enacted a “local” program that is virtually indistinguishable from every other “local” program, whether across the country or across the planet. The more important point, though, is that these initiatives that have been enacted ostensibly to save the environment, invariably destroy economic vitality, erode property rights, undermine liberty and constitutional government, impose soviet-style rule through “stakeholder councils,” subvert local control — and usually devastate the natural environment to boot. John Birch Society, among others
    And Old Whine In A New Bottle
  • Perhaps A Deeper Critique From the Left
    In the wake of Katrina, New Orleans saw the rise of a new class of citizens. They self-identify as YURPs – Young Urban Rebuilding Professionals – and they work in architecture, urban planning, education, and related fields, making many changes, reducing the population, and transitioning towards a white culture. Counterpunch
  • Our obligation
    It is the information, and the value of the critique, not the source, that guides our response.
    “Avoid the Ad Hominem Fallacy.”
  • Valerie Hubbard, FAICP LEED AP. AkermanSenterfitt
    A J Catanese, Ph.D FAICP, Florida Institute of Technology
    Charles Pattison, FAICP, 1000 Friends of Florida
    Marie York, FAICP, York Solutions
    Merle Bishop, FAICP, Kimley Horne and Associates