Now that I have offended a few people in City and County governments with prior posts on this subject, let's see who else might be involved -- in the shadows. Here is the question:
In the past, what overall urban planning analysis has been a part of decisions about where to locate major public facilities?
Answer: NOT MUCH.
Public entities live in "silos," concerned only about the immediate needs of the entity itself, or the segments of the population they serve. Little thought, and no real analysis, is undertaken to study how the location of a major public facility will affect long term growth and possibly contribute to sprawl.
Having been a little snarly in past posts about sprawl, let me point out a story with a happy ending - a decision that will have long term benefits for the community.
A success story:
Several year ago there were "forces" who pushed very hard to locate the Cole County Jail & Law Enforcement Center in the suburbs -- somewhere out on Route B to be precise. Cole County Presiding Commissioner Marc Ellinger and I (and others) joined forces to keep this major facility close to downtown. Did the city have to donate land and give up parking? Yes. Were construction costs increased due to terrain? Yes. But the long term interests of the community were served by locating this facility (which is architecturally very nice) in the central business district.
Marc Ellinger knew, and the lesson from this story is, that public officials should think of urban planning when large facilities are being considered. I used to argue with a former school superintendent when he'd say that "schools should be built where the growth is occurring." Without much success I tried to point out that growth occurs where schools are located.
This is just not about history. We will soon be faced with two major planning issues:
1. A new high school.
Continuing the school theme, the present board is considering the location of a new high school. There are ongoing discussions about whether to repurpose the exising campus or purchase hundreds of acres in the suburbs.
Let one thing be clear. In making this decision, the School Board is not just building a school. They are directing how, and where, growth will occur in our community for the next century. If their decision is based purely on how nice a new facility in the suburbs will look and feel, they should be replaced at the next election. They have a responsibility to adddress urban planning in their decision, something their predecessors have ignored. (My next post on the subject will provide some historial details.) They have a responsiblity to ignore real estate investors and developers who are salivating to build sprawl subdivisions outside the city.
2. A recreational facility.
Second, we need multipurpose gym space in our Parks system. Everyone knows it, and there are funds available to at least start the process. The Parks Commission should think about more than their own silo. They should think about how this $8 to 10 million asset paid by taxpayers will enhance the future of the community as a whole. Will Parks, like the YMCA, succumb to the lure of suburbia and mall neighborhoods, or will they think about long term growth and sprawl issues?
Public officials and non-profit boards will not think outside their silos until taxpayers and contributors demand it.
3. Let's Start Now.
Aircraft carriers and policy makers take a long time to change direction. Let's start by demanding that the location of all public facilities serve the long term planning goals of the community instead of short term expediency and glitz.