Imagining Austin

This week we are having two guest speakers come in and talk to us about the Imagine Austin comp plan. I've been interested in this topic, particularly in the challenges and dysfunction involved with the plan's development, so it was great to hear two different perspectives on the process; one coming from a longtime, deeply committed activist and the other from a consultant hired by the city late in the planning process.

Mark Yznaga's presentation  today was extremely informative. I really appreciated having an insider's perspective on the history of planning in Austin and I was struggling to write down pretty much everything he was saying. For instance, he revealed some of the pivotal challenges the process has faced thus far, including the consultant selection process and how the Citizens Advisory Task Force was able to reclaim the process and make it somewhat participatory, and also how the poor communication and information sharing among city staff has translated into ineffective and disjointed communication with the public at times. It amazes me to think about how many structural elements have to be aligned in order to have a successful planning process. At the same time, I think one of the themes of this class is the ability of an organization or team to learn through the process, and I'm curious to learn more about if and how the City of Austin has learned or adapted as Imagine Austin has moved forward. In fact, I wish I would have found a way to formulate that thought into some questions for Mark when we went out to lunch after class. Instead, I asked some questions about affordable housing and activism and the creative arts community and spent most of the time observing the highly fascinating exchange between Mark and Alan about the deeper issues within Austin and planning in complex cities in general.

One of the things Mark said was pretty interesting to me. When I asked him what should be done about the poor relationship between neighborhood activists/the Austin Neighborhoods Council and the City, he responded that he was disappointed about the tenor of the conversation and the approach of some of the activists, but that the most important priority was to "get a plan on the ground" that we can revise later. As for ANC's threat to try to kill the plan, he said "I won't let that happen," revealing a deep personal commitment to getting the comp plan implemented at any cost. The questions this raises in my mind is:
1) while some discontent is to be expected during any politicized process like planning, I wonder how much discontent is necessary (what is the threshold) to really derail or significantly disrupt or distort a plan, 
2) to what extent should the discontented be engaged and how? Is there some sort of process design to really heal those divisions or at some point, should staff and other stakeholders just make the decision to "muscle in" what they believe is best for the city at any cost?