We have only to read the letters column of the daily newspaper or listen to the evening
news to know that the public at large considers congestion, pollution, and other issues
associated with urban growth to be serious problems.  Yet this same public rarely
demands stronger urban planning as a solution to these problems.

Why doesn't urban planning have greater public support?  And why don't planners
in the trenches have the status they deserve?  In my view, the answer lies in the goals
our profession sets forth for itself.  We say we want to "make great communities happen,"
and to enhance "livability."   That's not only ambiguous; it sounds as though we're selling
a luxury when what we should be doing is satisfying basic human needs.  We need far
more serious goals.

We once had such goals.  At the beginning of the last century, planning was one of the
new professions that were trying to reform disease-ridden and dangerous cities.  Planners
were in the forefront of those seeking to reduce the incidence of infectious disease among
city dwellers by providing sanitary and storm sewers, paved streets, safe drinking water,
better housing, public parks and open space, public transportation, zoning, subdivision
regulations, building codes and, yes, suburban neighborhoods.

Today, we face other types of public health and safety issues: the dangerous outcomes
associated with sedentary lifestyles and poor nutrition.  Clearly, the alarming increase in
chronic disease among Americans has many causes.  But there is no doubt that the
influence of the built environment is extremely important when it comes to the social
and economic costs of an unhealthy lifestyle.

If public health and safety became our primary goals, we would be carrying out health
and safety audits of existing comprehensive plans.  We would be preparing impact
statements, which would consider the public health and safety implications of major
projects.  Both documents could become powerful additions to the planner's toolkit.

By taking on health and safety goals, planners could attract powerful allies.
The well-established and influential cadre of city, county, and state public health officials
and other health advocates would rally to support urban planners who explicitly use
public health and safety goals to assess plans and development projects. 

We could forge other alliances as well.  In particular, we could work with developers to
encourage and facilitate good projects.  It used to be that real estate developers focused
on managing financial and market risk.  Today, they worry about "entitlement risk,"
whether they will receive public approvals.  NIMBY (and BANANA) forces have taken
their toll, improving some projects but certainly causing delays in the development
process and raising costs for developers and buyers.

With the growing use of small-area plans to guide development more precisely, planners
should be working closely with developers who are willing to sponsor compatible projects.
By keeping the focus on public health and safety goals, planners would come to the table
with greater assurance of public support, leading to a smoother and more predictable
review process and less risk for developers. 

Identifying public health and safety as primary goals would also give planners more tangible
and profound criteria to evaluate public policies, plans, and projects.  The goals would
provide a sound basis for defending planners' ideas about sustainability, smart growth,
transit-oriented development, and the like.  The profession would join those who are
addressing life-and-death issues and enjoy the positive recognition that would follow.

Finally, by forging alliances with public health and safety advocates and with sympathetic
developers, planners would not only gain support for plan implementation but could also
become leaders in local debates about growth and change.

Emil Malizia is chair of the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

©Copyright 2004 American Planning Association All Rights Reserved