Why 'Hack' a Planning Commission?
Innovation is Good, but Not When Democracy Suffers
I shifted from a long legal career to writing books and articles about cities, driven by a curiosity to understand how local land use decisions are shaped and how they reflect the values and composition of affected communities. One of the most intriguing aspects I've encountered in the United States and abroad is the rise of “co-created” participatory decisions, with ‘top-down' and 'bottom-up' inputs, honoring an equitable sense of community.
I have also appreciated the evolution of the inclusive voice in local decision-making. There's a growing emphasis on amplifying perspectives and trust of previously marginalized urban communities and exploring innovative methods for making crucial local planning decisions. As I wrote for GeekWire and Planetizen, the recent Urban Resilience Hackathon at the University of Washington was one example.
My latest stop, Mercer Island, Washington—a small, leafy city between Seattle and Bellevue—has been my family’s habitat in one form or another for some years, first in the 1950s and then after 1992. There, a recent change to land use decision-making initially intrigued me as a co-creation approach but has left me deeply concerned, not just as an urbanist, lawyer, or academic but as a critic of how best to manage community change.
Mercer Island appears to be “hacking” in an ill-advised direction.
Hacking Transparency
The City Council recently “hacked” the City’s Planning Commission in a way that cuts against the dynamics of community-based decision-making. Reducing local membership and substituting paid professionals who reside outside the city is counterintuitive for a community planning body.
On May 7, the Mercer Island City Council decided to reconstitute the Planning Commission as follows:
Composition Change: The Planning Commission will be reduced from seven members to five.
Inclusion of Non-Resident Practitioners: The commission will include two non-resident paid practitioners.
Resident Representation: The commission will also include two resident laypersons (not compensated) and one resident-paid practitioner.
Compensation: Practitioners, also called land-use professionals, will receive compensation of $500 per meeting.
Filling Vacancies: In case of a vacancy, a resident layperson may fill the position if a qualified paid practitioner is not found.
I’m told this decision was directed towards land-use planning capacity and staff efficiency. But, based on perspectives from different residents and commentary on the ever-popular Next Door, other motivations were at play. This included dissatisfaction with certain planning commission decisions or recommendations during the comprehensive plan revision process, a lack of interest from residents in commission service, or disdain for the “boxy” appearance of the Town Center allegedly resulting from past commission actions.
As detailed by the Mercer Island Reporter, the change also raised concerns among some council members and residents about the implications of replacing residents with non-resident and paid practitioners to make decisions for the community.
While a petition, testimony, and letters in opposition stressed how the approach was unprecedented in the Puget Sound region, they did not address the legal implications of the change, given the different forms of state-enabling legislation and Mercer Island’s “Code city” status.
“Code cites” in Washington State have some ability to innovate around their “planning agency” (see p.66). However, for smaller cities and towns that plan under the state’s traditional land use approach, state law presumes commissioners will be unpaid residents.
Forgetting the Grassroots
Planning commissions have a storied history in the United States, dating from the early 20th century, when “good government” took on rapid urbanization and industrial growth. They were largely local advisory bodies intended to guide municipalities’ development, addressing comprehensive plans and other ancillary functions.
The hallmark of these commissions was their grassroots composition—residents who volunteer time and expertise to help shape the future of their communities. Call it an early form of co-creation: a bridge between government and citizenry.
Perhaps most important was the commission's role in fostering a sense of ownership and civic responsibility and ensuring due process by allowing local voices to be heard and considered in urban planning decisions after appropriate notice and comment. Many cities have retained planning commissions in this role, even as professional hearing examiners and city staff took on more decision-making roles (in their venues rather than as actual commission members).
The Departure
The Mercer Island City Council’s decision undervalues planning commissions' traditional role and composition. By opting for a smaller and more specialized body with paid positions, the council risks alienating the community it serves. Including non-resident practitioners spurred the most significant opposition, as it challenges the localism and volunteerism central to the ethos of planning commissions.
Here are some related questions and concerns:
Will the involvement of non-resident practitioners lead to decisions that do not represent the community?
Will the council’s action weaken residents’ sense of ownership and civic responsibility for community planning?
Similarly, will the commission become disconnected from the local community and its contextual needs, compromising effectiveness and inclusivity?’
Striking a Balanced Approach for the Misnomer
In conclusion, I’ll venture a truism: To ensure effective urban planning, it is crucial to balance professional expertise and community engagement. In this case, I wonder if American planning tradition—community involvement, local insight, and a sense of ownership in shaping the future—was entirely left behind.
Should there have been more robust public consultation and professional peer review of the proposal to assure transparency, public trust, and the perception that decisions are undertaken with sufficient community input?
I suggest a more balanced approach through whatever means. Calling the reconstituted body a planning commission is not only a disservice—it’s now a misnomer.
But regardless, the new entity needs to find a way to:
Emphasize Local Wisdom. Retaining more resident representation on the “commission” would have preserved intimate knowledge of the community's needs and values. This local wisdom is essential to reflect the community's aspirations and priorities.
Maximize Civic Engagement. Continue actively involving the community in planning through public consultation, citizen participation, and required public hearings. Diverse perspectives strengthen the legitimacy and effectiveness of planning decisions. While these forms of participation are often mandated by state law and local code, they need to be more than lip service and more like co-creation.
Until recently I was the chair of a commission in the city where I lived for the past eight years. While not like Mercer Island, we "hacked" our commission to extend the organizational capacity of our transportation department, not by putting paid staff on the rolls (although I am a planner by trade), but by broadly interpreting our bylaws to enable the commission to support staff in research, grant writing, and engagement tasks -- effectively outsourcing small tasks to the commission. It worked well -- the town landed a RAISE Grant, several small bike and pedestrian improvement grants, and leveraged other community partnerships into significantly increasing bike rack installations downtown.
I think there's lessons to be drawn from the comparative analysis between these two examples:
(1) Town planning staffs are overworked, understaffed, and need support for needs relative to capacity.
(2) Ad hoc commissions can do much more than complain about problems, but can be actively engaged in identifying solutions and policy implementation if given the chance.
(3) To achieve (2), commissions need more than just a "now taking volunteers" approach to participation, but professionalizing the commission isn't the solution. Curating community involvement to match interest, ability, and specialization with commission purpose and municipal need.