Who Plans America? Planneres or Developers? By Richard Peiser

The thesis of this article is that planners and developers, while assumably opposed, actually have the same goals and should work together to achieve them.

He first explains that many planners of the 60s and 70s (progress planners) were interested in joining planning because of the glamour of creating the cities of tomorrow. He then claims, though there is no reference, that many planners abandoned the profession in the 80s and 90s for development positions under the belief that developers have more control over the built environment. He concludes that since then, the planning profession is confused in it's role, and a polarizing relationship/battle between developers and planners blossomed.

After a lot of theorizing of how planners and developers see each other, he actually makes a few good points of the nexuses why and where planners and developers can work together to be mutually beneficial. These are as follows:

1. The need for balanced local budgets and urban infrastructure due to fiscal crisis.
2. The tipping point at which planners can no longer charge impact fees without the developers leaving the area.
3. Increasing democratization of the development process calls for some sort of mediator (ie planners)
4. Development rights are eroding and developers need city official allies/trust.
5. traffic and environmental concerns are causing a backlash on development and causing no-growth movements.
6. Neither the planner or developer can do anything alone.

He seems to think the major problem planners have with working with developers and vice versa is the planner's inability to understand the developer's risk. He points out the power for planners, something we all probably knew already, or should know--the fact that planner's can streamline the development process thereby reducing cost and risk for the developer.

While he seems to keep riding the point that planners and developers can work together, as that it is his thesis, his 'Are There Limits to Cooperation?' section is less than encouraging. He quotes Fainstein (Susan), who, "questions the leeway that planners have in the development process. The answer is: some, if they can avoid being co-opted." Peiser adds that the essential way to minimize this outcome is to increase the public's interest and participation in the decision making process. Great. Thanks for the nugget of...hope?

Peiser leaves us with some tips for both developers and planners:

Planners
1. Understand the development process and its risks
2. Understand that developers generally want to be proud of their work
3. Developers must be profitable to stay in business
4. Planners should make the developer's profit requirements work FOR them. Incentive programs work better than extractions.
5. Most things that cities want done cannot happen without developers.
6. Developers need to rely on planners for sound advice on the approvals process
7. Developers need to rely on planners increasingly to mediate conflicts before they reach the courts.
8. Developers are intermediaries.

Developers
I'm just going to summarize his advice here to say that developers should trust planner's advice and that planners can help them if they show clearly that htey have the public's interest at heart.