The Hunger Games: Comp Plan Amendments Gone Wild

This presentation will use a case-study-based approach to describe how a planning process can get derailed by incongruent visions, political upheaval, and fractured communication, and how to shift gears get results, even if not those anticipated. The loudest opinions can hijack even the best thought-out public engagement process. In such scenarios, diverging voices can be intimidated into silence, leading to exclusionary and inequitable results.

The case study will focus on Miami Shores Village, a suburban community in South Florida, which set about fixing a seemingly uncomplicated error in the Comprehensive Plan. In the process, the Village discovered major discrepancies and the need to align the Plan with other ongoing planning efforts, which envisioned a complete, age-friendly and resilient community. Elected and appointed officials, business owners, and progressive residents supported the amendments, viewing them as aspirational and forward-thinking. However, intense opposition from vociferous stakeholders muddled opportunities for balanced dialogue and added fuel to the fire.

This session will offer lessons to help planners understand the value of investing adequate time and funds in the public engagement process; learn how to manage mistrust, confusion, and fear; and learn how to deal with ethical dilemmas resulting from highly politicized processes.

Access this session with closed captions (Wordly)