FROM: Ron Littlefield
TO: Local Officials, Civic Leaders
DATE: December 8, 1983
RE: The "Plan 2000" Process
Let me attempt to define the process upon which we are embarking—commonly known as the "Plan 2000".
First of all, let's lay to rest the misconception that we are talking about "just another plan." Actually, Chattanooga has a very good record of implementing plans. For example, the Downtown Plan, the Railroad Relocation Plan, the various Transportation and Urban Renewa1 Plans, and (soon) the Bonny Oaks Plan, and the Amnicola Riverport Plan are all plans which guide action.
The principal problem with the term plan is that planning has sometimes been used (here and elsewhere) as a means to postpone decisions and action.
So lets understand from the outset and resolve that nothing in the "Plan 2000" concept should or will be used to sidetrack current issues such as Moccasin Bend, Bonny Oaks, the continuing downtown developments, or even issues such as what to do about the airport or city jail. These are all present-day issues which require attention separate and apart from the "Plan 2000".
Actually the "Plan 2000" is more of a process. Perhaps it should be called "Process 2000" or "Vision 2000" or some other non-planning term because the effort is really directed at achieving a consensus—a collective vision—among the community's leadership about current and future conditions and the best path for getting from here (the present) to there (the future).
Thus, it is the process of examining the issues and reaching decisions about the best course which is really important. The plan is nothing more than a description of that process and a record of the key events and decisions as they occur along the way.
Outlined in its simplest form, the process might go as follows:
1. Appointment of the Chairman and Directors—Establishing a "Guiding Force" for the pro-cess. (This is perhaps the most important step.)
2. Agreement on the Present—Collecting and digesting facts and statistics which describe the present situation of the community-public finance, population, economic conditions—essentially, what's happening now.
3. Agreement on the Future—Everyone agrees that the future will be different, and it's realistic to assume that future population, per capita income, housing demands, educational needs and other facts will fall within certain limits. In San Francisco, the business community used a highly credible source—the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen Co.—to produce believable information on present and future conditions.
It's relatively simple to evaluate present conditions—the data exist. It's a little more difficult to establish limits for the future, but it can be done. The principal concern must be that information on both the present and the future be believable and agreed to by participants in the process. Realistic views of the present and future are the basic points of beginning and ending.
To illustrate this point with a ridiculous example, it is obvious that Chattanooga cannot hope to be larger than Atlanta in 10 years because:
A. We know our present size, and
B. Within limits, we know what the future holds in terms of population growth.
What we do not know, and what we must come to grips with are the effects of:
(1). The continuing decline in manufacturing and increase of services as pieces of the national economic pie.
(2). Future demands for computer literacy and other educational factors.
(3). Changes in transportation patterns and costs, housing and other land use issues.
(4). The continuing growth of the South as a region--and Chattanooga's participation in that growth.
(5). The changing needs for public services and the public ability to support future infrastructure improvements and maintenance.
(6). So forth...and so on, etc.
4. The Process—Quite simply, how do we agree to get from the present to the future along a path which overcomes our deficiencies and capitalizes on our opportunities?
This is where broad-based community participation comes into play. Agreement is the goal. Appropriate committees are formed—representing the entire community—no token representation. Given the agreed-upon present and agreed-upon future, all that remains is the mapping of an agreed-upon path. Again, agreement is the purpose of the process. That is why it takes broad-based participation involving perhaps dozens of groups and hundreds of individuals—so that we can hope for a broader consensus. That is why it takes 18 months to two years to complete the process. No doubt, there will be some pain and agony along the way.
When Nashville went through this process, eight major issues consisting of many lesser factors were examined:
1. Arts
2. Crime and Public Safety
3. Economics
4. Education
5. Health Care
6. Housing
7. Recreation
8. Transportation
San Francisco only considered four key issues:
1. Housing
2. Transportation
3. City Finances
4. Job and Business Opportunities
We might select a greater or smaller number of issues for examination.
Of course, we have many local groups working on such issues now. The difference is that the whole leadership of the community is not presently wrestling with community problems in the context of an agreed-upon view of the community's present and future conditions. Quite simply, we need to focus our attention.
The current best selling book, In Search of Excellence, makes the point that people generally do not really believe unless they are actively involved.
Speaking to civic groups and circulating throughout the community, it's appalling to see how many citizens—even some leading citizens—have no picture of where this community is actually going. Many people simply do not realize how much of our future is being determined for us by world and national trends and (most importantly) how much of our future we can determine for ourselves if we reach consensus on (1) the present (2) the future, and (3) the best path from here to there.
The product of this process should be a greater understanding of the future, a more involved community leadership, and an improved ability to deal with issues that relate to the progress of the community as it proceeds along the selected path. We would hope to produce a written agenda (a strategic plan) to frame our decisions for one year, five years and ten years after the process is complete.
One Final Point:
Conditions always change. To effectively deal with change, Indianapolis has maintained the independent "Greater Indianapolis Progress Committee"—separate from government and the Chamber of Commerce—to examine controversial issues as they arise. The GIPC is designed to seek a community consensus so that troublesome new issues can be resolved and the city can push on toward its agreed-upon destiny.
Another product of our "Plan 2000" might be the organization of just such a committee for Chattanooga.
RL/SP