RSS Feed
Print Story
E-mail Story
A comprehensive philosophy for development? Grand idea
| Saturday, May 10 2008 5:41 PM
Last Updated: Saturday, May 10 2008 5:43 PM
Maybe we haven't been giving Ken Weir enough credit. The Bakersfield city councilman, who's facing a possible November recall, may be onto something with all this talk of a new planning philosophy. Every dynamic organization needs a guiding philosophy, a succinct set of principles that inform its judgment on matters large and small.
Our readers recommend:
Loading Stories
I'm just not sure Weir is the man to be drawing up our philosophy. He wants to fire Russell Johnson, the planning commissioner he inherited from his predecessor, because Johnson hasn't bought into this "change in philosophy." And what "philosophy" is this? The one Weir admits he is still working on. Yes, Johnson has failed to embrace a philosophy that no one has enunciated, a philosophy that hasn't been put to paper, much less endorsed by a solitary soul we can find, except (vaguely) by Weir himself.
But there's nothing wrong with developing a philosophy. I suggest something smart and pithy. Something that acknowledges the fact that once the asphalt trucks show up, there's no turning back, so we'd better get it right.
Thing is, Weir is late to the party. That's not to say he -- or, better yet, someone operating with a full deck -- shouldn't be able to contribute to the conversation. But we've already got a set of principles called the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, which is updated every few years to reflect new realities. Then there's Greater Bakersfield Vision 2020, a 9-year-old document that tapped hundreds of people's thoughts about the future of their community. It's been used as a template for other planning documents, too, including the Kern Council of Governments' Kern Regional Blueprint, an analysis (still in progress) that looks at regional transportation, housing, land uses and environmental issues.
But, again, there's nothing wrong with having a single, all-encompassing philosophy. Something people can remember. Physicians have a good one: "Do no harm." Planners?
Easier said than done. Local government officials tend to look at development one project at a time; it's the nature of the job.
"Normally we're so mired in the details it's hard to think of anything overarching," says David Price, director of the Kern County Resource Management Agency. But he'll take a stab at it:
"Develop a culture of working harmony to create efficiently operating communities that provide jobs to sustain a growing population while supplying public services efficiently and in an environmentally sustainable manner." That won't all fit on a biceps tattoo, but I like it.
And county planners have actually acted on that philosophy a time or two, last year's tightening of septic tank restrictions being a prime example.
What else might a responsible philosophy demand of planners and developers? A few essential principles come to mind:
* Think long-term. Castle & Cooke Inc. has found ways to turn a profit while generally making the overall community a better place by envisioning broader needs. "But the whole idea of master planning is foreign to Bakersfield," says Bruce Freeman, president of Castle & Cooke California. "What's done in Bakersfield is really just project planning."
* Focus on infill. Outward growth is inevitable, but a city shouldn't be expanding its footprint any faster than necessary. Bakersfield ought to keep looking for ways to make rejuvenation of the urban core more attractive to developers.
* Think transportation. People laugh when you talk about middle-class bus ridership in Bakersfield, a city of three-quarter-ton pickup trucks. But it becomes more plausible as the region grows, and the planning needs to start now with fewer maze-like, large-lot neighborhoods.
* Nothing trumps health concerns. That means you don't build in places that first responders can't easily reach, and -- asthma sufferers unite -- you create incentives for builders to create low-energy consumption, smaller-lot housing.
What else? Ken Weir needs to know. (Here: ken@weircpa.com.) He's drafting a document of great import because, as he's suggested, constituents (some of whom may have invested heavily in certain stalled projects) demand it. At least I think he meant constituents when he said "we're." Maybe he just meant "Weir."
Reach Robert Price at 395-7399 or rprice@bakersfield.com.