Public Interest
Prepared by
Erick S. Pena
Environmental Planning Student
"So widely invoked and so ill-defined"
Michel P. Brooks
ENSP 311
Steven C. Orlick, Ph.D
Introduction to Planning
Spring, 2006
In benefit of the "public interest" I will contribute to this endless technical argument and for the Interest of the planning community I will give my thought on the whole concept behind "Public Interest". In addition I will discuss a controversial "case study" were the "public interest" comes to play. But first I will introduce this term by comparing Michel P. Brooks to Richard E. Klostermans' opinion, which seemed to have done to much analytical thought over these two words, especially the later.
On one side we have Klosterman, who wrote his article in 1985, called "A Public Interest Criterion" It is long and tedious and I don't recommend it to anybody that doesn't enjoy getting very confused while they read. Since I had to read the whole thing, I might as well talk about it, he starts out by giving a history background on the word "Public Interest" and states that even though the word has been around and played an important role in planning, "public interest is often rejected as a vague criterion whose application cannot be rationally defended or empirically verified". His paper "suggests" that --it is empirically verifiable-- just as much as Science. His argument is based in response to three fundamental objections "public Intrest" seems to have:
- "Public interest can be interpreted in many conflicting ways." He argues that because it is conflicting it , it is "appropriate evaluative criterion, comparable to the criterion of scientific method"
- "Need not been taken seriously because they are only value judgments which cannot be empirically tested or rationally defended." He argues that "not only empirical evidence is required to support value judgment but this evidence is restricted by the evaluation being made"
- "Seems contrary for professional planners to use concepts such as public interest to impose their views on the public at large". He argues that an appropriate criterion whose use in evaluating public policies can be rationally defended.
In other words he believes that there is a public interest, "the collective and the individual interests" Nevertheless, after all he acknowledges that that public interest in some location will cause an opposite effect in some other location.
Brooks on the other hand, does not think Public Interest is possible. He writes that "Ideally a planner confronted with a difficult professional decision should be able to consult the public interest concept for guidance, using it as a template to differentiate the more public serving outcomes from those that are less so. Alas, such a template doe not exist." Brooks also considers other ideas from other others who have tried to put give a meaning to public interest. He mentions "any change which harms no one and which makes some people better off, must be considered to be an improvement" but he found out this is impossible. Then he analyzed another that says that "change is an improvement if those who gain evaluate their gains at a higher figure than the value which the losers set upon their losses" this idea seemed excellent in theory but when it came to real life it didn't exactly go through since it encountered "usual glitches". I could name more examples of peoples ideas on what public interest is or should be, but I limit going straight to what brooks thought "he suggested that in fact ,that values –those of the planner, and those of the diverse individuals and communities whom the planner serves—constitute the real bedrock of planning. Planners plan, ultimately because they hold values that impelled them to do so."
The opposing opinions of these two are actually not that opposing. It might just be that they are stuck with the word and can't seem to find different words to encompass the impossibility of satisfying all public.
Klosterman expects people to view public interest from his perspective, based on his complex explanations. If I am the average citizen and I hear the term public interest, I would interpret it from the simplest of all perspectives, –not Klostermans'--, that is to say it should interest all public, then I can either agree or disagree. (and surely, that will always be depending on my individual interest regarding the specific case). Therefore individual interest and public interest is the same thing for the common individual. On the other hand, the individuals that represent the common individuals are groups who make it part of their duty to represent the "public interest", therefore, they should see public interest from alternative perspectives. Brooks says that these people have the right to be part of the ones who make decisions on public interest since they are the ones who care to represent the people, and I agree with that. Also he states that the planner should be the one who makes decisions on public interest since he has values that ultimately led him to become a Planner, thus entailing him to represent "public interest"
I want to extend brooks idea, since it is what most fits mine, I think that Planners aren't standing up for themselves as respected professionals for some reason I'm still working on figuring out. It makes perfectly good sense to me that I can compare an architect and a (person) client to a planner and the city (client). If I hire an architect to design my house, it is because I don't know how to design houses and the architect does. Even though the architect has to work around my wants and needs for the design to be successful and fit for me, he is still the one with the expertise on space, function, and form (aesthetics). Nevertheless, I rarely hear of an architect being successful in doing this that is why most people have the idea that architects are only called upon to help the wife decorate the house. In the same manner a planner is a Professional and is called upon by the city for his expertise and interest (values). The planner should come up with the public interest based upon the cities wants and needs, just like an architect designs the house, thus it is permissible and expected that individual planners have a particular style and value some things more than others when making decisions on public interest.
I'm not saying that a planner should be omnipotent nor an architect should, especially when they have lost track of their profession and concentrated on their cities or companies revenues. If this was the case then these professionals should be judged, cited and reminded that their job is to do what is "best" for the Earth --then the community-- by a board that maintain the integrity of the profession. But I personally don't think this can ever be achieved in a truly ethical manner, since human representatives are easily blinded by power and common individuals prefer individual comfort to world reality; leaving all the silliness to the interest groups and those rare world conscious professionals battling for a Utopia. It's funny how once we realize that both Planners are a luxury that poor communities don't have, and Architects are usually a luxury for rich people. Nevertheless the fundamentals of both these professions are for the "Public Interest…" this just makes me wonder why there is so much confusion about the "public interest" situation –isn't it obvious that public interest stands for "Power Interest".
I am only a student with a naive mind, and currently quite ignorant in the politic system, therefore my opinion is not for you to believe or even to try to process, doing this might not be beneficial for your health; I recommend you to stop reading and check out the sales on your Sunday paper. Nevertheless, I do have to finish with the case study discussion I promised.
In this scenario I am the Downtown Development Planner of a City and I have been placed in charge of locating temporary showers and toilets downtown. To solve the problem I arrange for eight port-o-potties and site showers to be placed in alleys and be regularly serviced. –The problem with the homeless was solved. Nevertheless after a while commercial tenants want these removed since its hurting their sales, among other good reasons.
I have to write my report where I make a decision on the issue and "draft recommendations to the Task Force on The Homeless". Considering that I have been directed by the City Council to "conclude that the pilot project was a failure and to recommend immediate removal of the facilities" and that my boss just wants the problem to go away.
Those are the situations and the positions established to me. So I first go to my ethic code as a planner, but very quickly I eliminate those in order to get my job done (goal) so I look at my job description: the book says I should be concerned for all citizens including homeless, but since that raises an ethical issue again I discard it and proceed to the next (alternatives), now I look at my watch and stop looking for alternatives since I remember that I've been "directed" by the City Council to remove the facilities and It seems like he has the power in this case and there is nothing I can do about it. Thus, I write my report instructing to remove the facilities, and tell the "Task Force for The Homeless" that this project was a failure but we will continue working in future projects to resolve the homeless situation, in the name of public interest. This temporarily concludes this case study and my boss can hand me the next case he would "just like to go away". Later I might get an invitation from the city council to a reunion where I can meet other important, powerful people who need strings pulled in order to grow and generate more revenues and make the economy stronger in the name of Public Interest, and I can feel ethically good about all my actions by believing this.
No comments:
Post a Comment