Stop the World - We Need A Plan!

There is a madness that has descended upon planning in this country and it goes by the name of moratorium. Community after community has been torn asunder by the notion it can stop the world to write a plan that, well, stops the world. Though usually well-intended by local officials who adopt them, moratoriums are the latest tool of those who would have no change, the defenders of the status quo who want the world for themselves. Moratoriums, indeed, are no more than reactionary measures that can only be described as anti-planning. They are a dragon that will consume all planning and destroy it as a rational process if we don’t put a moratorium on moratoriums.

One might ask why it is moratoriums are almost always employed in communities with long histories of planning and zoning. This pre-supposes a failure of planning that raises other questions. If planning failed before, why should we expect different results now? Is it really a failure of planning or simply a change in the goals of those in charge? If it’s the latter, then what assurance is there the plan won’t change with every election? If plans change with every election, how is planning any different than politics? Is the price of poor planning to be paid by landowners who propose to comply with it? How do landowners comply if the goals keep changing and the plans are no more than the latest land use platform of some politician? Moratoriums, once ventured upon, quickly become a slippery slope down into a world where planning is no more than slick imagery used to portray the exercise of raw political power.

Moratoriums Are Reactionary Attempts to Close the Gates of Paradise

Moratoriums are, in a word, reactionary. Planning is thoughtful. Planning is a process intended to involve, as much as possible, the entire community, with a prerequisite being no predetermined ends. Moratoriums, by contrast, are entirely driven by predetermined ends, their very enactment always being in response to perceived threats from some form of development that would actually implement the current plan, a plan a majority of the community has suddenly decided it no longer likes and wants to stop. If there be any doubt, consider that moratoriums never lead to higher density or make it easier to grow. Rather, they are specifically designed to do the opposite. They are tools of anti-growth forces determined to forestall change.

The constituency for change is always tiny compared to the power and economic interests of those who like things as they are. After all, who benefits more than me if my neighbor is unable to develop his land? There are always more neighbors than proponents. Sincere local officials all too often succumb, for this reason, to the temptation to first stop everything when what they should be doing is planning. The winners are the “haves” who want things as they are. The losers are the few voters who own land and those faceless, nameless, voteless future residents who might want to move to the community - the “have nots.” Planning becomes the excuse for what is anything but planning. It becomes the facade for a raw power grab by those wanting to close the gates to their new found Paradise behind them. Hence, the language of “preservation” that always accompanies these efforts.

Planning Emergency or Simply An Excuse for War?

None of this to suggest improper motives on the part of local officials. No community should have to throw itself open to any form of development. Conserving what is good about a community while it grows is a worthy objective and arguably necessary to maintaining culture and values. Many, perhaps even most, local officials are driven by such considerations. Unfortunately, moratoriums eliminate any possibility of achieving the balance so essential to this planning. They instead exacerbate the conflicts by creating two camps - one of those landowners severely impacted and one of those existing residents tremendously benefiting by the sudden halt of development. The result is a pressure cooker environment where rational decision making is next to impossible given the special interests now involved and the very large stake each has in the outcome of the moratorium. Well meaning local leaders are dragged against their will into a hot cauldron of controversy where only the votes count, compromise having become impossible.

Yet, it’s all so completely unnecessary. The very concept of a “planning emergency” that undergirds the law allowing for moratoriums is silly. Emergencies don’t require two years of planning. Rather, they demand action. A zoning amendment can be done almost as rapidly as a moratorium but communities determined to slow growth seldom choose this option for one very important reason – moratoriums avoid the burden of proof and the environmental analysis that must go into zoning changes. They are a quick and dirty way to kill projects that, although they comply with existing zoning, don’t enjoy popular support. Time is money and the ability to simply say no for two years ends many a project with no tests required on the part of the community doing the dirty work. Some communities have done repeat moratoriums less than a year apart – a complete abuse of the system.

There is simply no such thing as a planning emergency if one is honest about it. State law imposes so many additional planning requirements above and beyond zoning that any project can be slowed or stopped if there is good cause using environmental statutes. Additionally, planning statutes in some states, New York being a prime example, offer virtually no vested rights in development approvals unless an applicant has expended significant sums of money in construction. Planning and engineering don’t count and only a very foolish applicant will rely upon such approvals when new laws are pending. Moratoriums are, therefore, completely superfluous from the standpoint of legitimate planning. Their only value is to an illicit form of planning intended to stop projects cold while permanent measures to kill projects are put in place. They are the tools of demagogic NIMBY’s and special interests who do not want to be burdened with the need to prove their case.

Stealing Savings and Retirements

Moratoriums are also unfair on another level. Equity in land can only be effectively recovered with a fair return on investment when markets are at their peak. Peaks don’t last. Landowners who may have owned their properties for decades and now need to cash in the equity for retirement have a limited window of opportunity every real estate cycle to do. This window, unfortunately for them, is exactly the time when communities are most often tempted to slam it shut with moratoriums. Moratoriums, therefore, don’t just foreclose the ability to sell for two years – they take away the value at precisely the point where landowners can come out whole. For farmers and others whose savings are invested in the land they own, this clearly constitutes a taking. Worse, it is an unchallengeable form of taking, there being neither a condemnation process to assure fair value nor a zoning process to assure balance through a burden of proof. Moratoriums make it possible to literally steal the savings and retirement funds of those who worked the land so long to create the environment so appealing to those doing the stealing.

Moratoriums are, too, counterproductive. They are anti-planning. Planning is by nature long-term thinking and cannot be produced in a vacuum where all life is first sucked out of a community for a prescribed period. Moreover, one cannot be thoughtful in an environment where two camps of special interests have been sent to battle over your work. The very availability of moratoria also discourages planning ahead. No community thinking it can stop what it doesn’t like at any time with a simple moratorium has any incentive to plan ahead. Politics is the art of procrastination and risk avoidance. There is, to the politician who knows no better from experience, seemingly no easier way to punt zoning issues down the field than a moratorium. It gets an angry public of “last man in, close the door” types off his or her back and delays the day of reckoning. Why plan ahead and take the risks of a zoning process when such a tool is available when needed? But, again, this is anything but planning.

Ending the Madness - Slaying the Dragon

What can done? First, eliminate the moratorium madness by taking away the authority to enact them. They are completely unjustified and a disincentive to planning on every level. They have no place in a fair planning and zoning process. This demands legislative changes in the case of New York State or a court decision finally recognizing the great harm moratoriums are doing to planning. Some recent decisions suggest judicial patience with communities who are abusing their authority to routinely extend and repeat moratoriums is growing thin. One can hope, therefore, some court will soon finally do what so urgently needs to be done by slaying the moratorium dragon.

Secondly, communities ought to think about adopting “pending law” rules that eliminate threats from developers trying to beat the enactment of new zoning rules. Pennsylvania, for example, has long had a “pending ordinance doctrine” that effectively applies new zoning standards from the moment they are formally proposed and before they are adopted. New York State communities could conceivably do this under Municipal Home Rule Authority, much the same as they do with respect to advertising of new laws and ordinances that would otherwise require publication in full. Such a local law might, for example, simply provide “the standards of any local law or ordinance hereafter enacted to amend existing subdivision and zoning statutes of the Town of Anytown shall apply from the date of the first advertisement of a public hearing on the same.” This would provide an effective alternative to the blunt force moratorium device and while providing an incentive to get at the job of community planning sooner rather than later.

It’s the Law Stupid!

A longer term solution is to require local planning and put the burden on communities to keep up with change. Those who don’t plan must live with their failure and adapt - the best possible incentive for planning. Every community with zoning should be required to have a comprehensive plan that is updated no less than every 10 years. Combined with a requirement that all zoning be based upon a comprehensive plan, this would eliminate any need for a moratorium. It would be a self-enforcing mechanism. Communities who failed to plan ahead would find their zoning subject to successful challenges. There would be no excuse for not planning ahead. Fairness and deliberation would be restored to a process demeaned by the moratorium.

Finally, there must be a corollary system of vested rights that makes sense and creates a level playing field for landowners. New York State’s system is absurd and creates perverse incentives for landowners to avoid planning ahead, just as it does for communities. Unlike other states where preliminary approvals allow reasonable periods (e.g., five years in Pennsylvania) for a landowner to develop his or her own property, New York State only gives six months and accords almost no value even to a final approval if the landowner has not completed major portions of the project. Landowners are, therefore, encouraged to hold back from slowly developing their own properties and instead sell properties in bulk to developers who must then hurry up to get their projects completed, creating crisis conditions. A smart law would provide for five or more years of protection so planning and development could be done more slowly or properties resold with approvals and time to do it right. Now, the incentive is to go in for the quick kill - to sell properties to someone with the resources to make a quick buck. This is, once again, the opposite of good planning.

Will moratoriums finally be rejected in favor of planning ahead? One can only hope so. Mixing planning and democracy is, however, not easily done. It demands adherence first and foremost to the requirements of law and the obligation to protect the property rights of all, not just some. Unfortunately, democracy, while the best system of all, also embodies in itself the greatest threat to these rights. It is the “tyranny of the majority.” Jefferson said “the tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared.” Tocqueville, too, observed “if ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority.” When a legislature such as a Town Board enacts a moratorium that, by fiat, exerts the will of a majority desiring no change and casts aside property rights, rights to travel and the needs of future generations, it embarks on the course of tyranny. We must get back to the law and the principles of a Magna Carta that advanced the radical idea not even the King could arbitrarily take away the rights of landowners – they could only do themselves acting together, which is the very foundation of planning.

Meeting Management - Someone's Got To Do It

It would be difficult, I suppose, to pick a poorer subject to grab a reader’s attention than an article on meeting management. Nevertheless, I’m going to plunge into this sea of boredom, this swamp (or should I, to be politically correct, say wetland) of tedium. Frankly, someone has to do it.

Who has not sat through a meeting that didn’t deserve the honor of such a description? We’ve all been there. We’ve all had to endure those interminable discussions that result in less than nothing because the chair had no idea how to direct the meeting and let it it be taken over by the participants. Those unable to be elected chairs themselves live for these opportunities. They finally get the stage and no one’s there to shut them down.

Let’s be honest - most meetings are a little that way. The bold dominate. If leadership doesn’t come from the chair, it arises from the crowd. If the crowd manages the meeting, there is no meeting, only a gathering that either disintegrates or turns into a mob. It is far better, under such circumstances, to have not met at all.

So what does one do to manage a meeting? It would be easy to say that meeting management, simply put, is leadership. If leaders but exercised it, we might have no need for this discussion. It’s not quite that simple though. The individuals chosen to chair meetings often end up there because no one else wanted the job. They may be natural born followers, but are selected to chair meetings because they’re available and have no particular enemies. Or, they may be merely the next person in line. Or, they may have been excellent participants who have no idea how to run a meeting. Or, perhaps they’re simply the hardest worker or largest contributor, but have no meeting management skills.

Given, the poor reasons why people with few, if any, meeting management skills so often end up chairing meetings, some practical advice is warranted. Unfortunately, little of it is to be found in professional circles. What I have learned I have gained by experiencing those deaths of a thousand cuts sitting through meetings that never really ended or dealing with hysterical audiences who viewed every exhibition of sound reasoning as a threat. You might, indeed, classify my advice, such as it is, as little more than street smarts. Nevertheless, I’ve learned some things along the way that you need to know. There are no excuses for bad meetings if you follow some simple rules.

Watch the clock and make sure others see you watching it.

The first thing I look for in a room where I’m expected to lead a meeting is the location of the clock. If your meeting place doesn’t have one, see if you can find one to use. Its important. A wristwatch may have to do but is a poor substitute for a wall clock that everyone can watch together. Put the clock somewhere where you can see it easily but have to turn your head a little to do so. Don’t worry if it’s a little fast - that’s a good thing.

A room without a clock is a home for endless discussion. All of us are our own favorite speakers, no matter how often, how forcefully or self-deceivingly we argue otherwise. Many meeting regulars are there for the entertainment and the social interaction. Others are actors. You can’t give them a stage without setting a time for intermission. They aren’t conscious of time. They’re having fun or are so emotionally involved they forget time and everything else.

You need to bring time back and restore it to its glory by watching the clock. Let meeting participants know you’re watching it. They need to understand time is very important to you. Those people who are attending the meeting out of necessity also need to know you recognize time is important to them. When you regularly turn your head to look at the clock you send a subtle but strong signal to all that the meeting will be timely.

You also provide yourself with an excuse to interrupt the chatter and remind everyone it is time to move along. They’ll all appreciate it, even those you rudely cut off. You will also establish yourself as the meeting manager, because nothing is more important to meeting management than good use of time.

Use an agenda and stay on it.

A piece of paper is a marvelous thing. A written meeting agenda serves to focus discussion. It provides a degree of formality that gives structure to an assembly. It serves as a distraction for the impatient meeting participants who are looking for something do while waiting to speak. They can be engaged in making notes, a harmless activity that, unlike some other things they might do, won’t disrupt your meeting. Most importantly, an agenda offers you the leverage you need to control events. “We need to resolve this item and move on, because there’s a lot on our agenda this evening. Would someone care to make a motion?”

Use the agenda to control the tempo of your meeting. Make sure it’s detailed enough to really guide discussion (6-8 items) but not so detailed that’s it’s overwhelming. Go over it at the beginning of the meeting and let everyone know what to expect out of the meeting. Establish a guaranteed adjournment time and put it on the agenda. Your attendees will smile cynically the first time you do it, but when they see you mean it, they’ll love you for it. That cynical smile will dissolve into an approving nod.

Herd those cats, but don’t be a dog.

Every meeting can take unexpected turns; hence the “herding cats” analogy we often here today. It is a rather accurate portrayal of what can happen, but responding in kind by chasing those cats all over the barn is more likely than not to lead to the dog’s unfortunate lesson of a painful scratch on the nose.

Somewhat better techniques are demanded if you want to avoid the pain. Let those cats meow a bit, but don’t be afraid to cut off extraneous discussion, summarize and move on. Use a gavel - it works! People respect the gavel, especially if you learn to use it sparingly and can really slam it when circumstances demand. No one expects it then. You can regain control of the meeting instantaneously. Simply having the gavel at hand to reach for is usually adequate to let a long-winded speaker know enough is enough, however. Learning when to reach, when to grab and when to slam is an art you’ll simply have to master with time. Just having a gavel on the table will help in the meantime. Try it!

You can also guide a meeting as chair, by calling on individuals who are holding back. Many do hold back, some out of meekness, others out of frustration and still others out of respect, but you need to bring them out into the discussion. You will learn, with experience, if you have not already, that intelligence is highly overrated by the intelligent. What’s really needed is wisdom. Every community and almost every group includes one or more sages who are hesitant to dominate discussion, but can always be called upon to offer such wisdom.

It’s not hard to identify the sages. They tend to sit in the middle of the room, usually try to encourage you with nods and facial expressions and often hold back speaking until they’ve heard others speak. Don’t confuse them with fence-riders, however. They are given to strong opinions, but are wise enough enough to wait for the right moment to express them. Call on these sages to get your meeting back on track. Defer to them when necessary. Most of all, remember the smartest person in the room is often the one who recognizes he’s not the most intelligent. He cleverly uses those who are more intelligent to make his points for him. If you can learn to recognize such sages and call on them judiciously, you’ll be the smartest person in the room and a good meeting manager.

Be fair, but don’t forget to lead.

A good meeting is fair to all who participate in it, but fairness doesn’t require consensus. Consensus can, indeed, be deceiving. It often confirms the lack of leadership. Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister known as the “Iron Lady” described consensus as “...abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies ... something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.” Her point is well-taken. What is desired is not a consensus where everyone surrenders something to arrive a compromise straddling collective opinions, but agreement obtained after one side convinces the other of the rightness of their position. That some of this may occur on both sides of the argument is likely, but seeking the middle-ground as a goal in itself only frustrates the search for the truth. Far better it is that all opinions get aired and clear judgments made, than a group capitulate to the temptation to make everyone happy.

This can only work, however, if those whose opinions are not accepted realize they were heard. They must know that it was their own failure to convince that led to the defeat of their position. This is easier than it sounds. Being fair is not that difficult. Call on those who you know disagree with you. Acknowledge their points and even help articulate them if necessary. Treat everyone with the same respect. Avoid direct argument - it’s not your job as the meeting manager. Let others make the case while you clarify and illustrate where you can. Show your strength by admitting the weaknesses of your own arguments. Recognize the strengths of others where possible. But, never ever be afraid to express your own views in strong terms at the appropriate time, generally after others have first spoken. This is leadership - steady, strong and respectful of others.

Formality is necessary, but a laugh will often do as much good.

Some formality is required of any meeting. There must be respect for the process of the meeting if it is to be manageable and accomplish anything at all. It has nothing to do with respect for you as the meeting manager, as some might mistakenly believe. Rather, it’s all about maintaining the integrity of the institution. If no one believes in it, no one can be expected to accept the results. Therefore, some elemental rules are called for in running meetings where controversy and disagreement are expected.
Large public hearings and meetings can be particularly challenging, but I’ve found some simple guidelines accomplish wonders. First, let no one speak twice until everyone who wants to speak has spoken once. This will take the steam out of the impassioned actors and meeting dominators in the group.

Second, make participants come to the front of the room to speak. This tends to put manners on most (although not all) unruly people. No one wants to make a fool of themselves in front of an audience.

Third, get their name, where they are from and who they are representing. Many of the most cantankerous people at large meetings turn out to be “insurgents” from other areas who are merely there for the fun. Exposing them tends to unify those with legitimate interests.

Fourth, make everyone address the chair or the board - allow NO banter among participants. It is surprising how often otherwise good meeting managers let this happen, but it does happen. It can take place in a second unless quickly countered by an alert chairperson. Someone from the audience pops up with a question and the person speaking automatically wants to respond. Human beings have the innate bad habit of wanting to answer any question put to them. Good newspaper reporters understand this. You need to also, because it can lead to a heap of trouble in an instant. Audience banter is deadly. You must stop it immediately, from the very beginning, no matter how innocent. Tell your questioner that all questions go to the chair or board and don’t let your speaker answer until and unless you want her or him to do so. Stay in control and make heavy use of your gavel if required.

It’s useful, too, to summarize at the end of every major discussion to let everyone know they were heard. This encourages faith in your wisdom as the meeting manager. It discourages the temptation of others to jump in and take it over from you.
During the meeting use a modest amount of humor to keep the meeting enjoyable and deal with problem participants. A laugh will make everyone relax a bit. After all, a meeting is just a meeting and no more. It’s seldom a matter of life and death. Interjecting some humor reminds people of that and restores perspective.

This is why meeting management is the job of the chairperson and not advisors, staff or professionals. Those types will take over your meeting if you let them. I know because I am one. I also know, however, that it’s usually not a good idea, precisely because we approach these matters as a business or profession. We take ourselves way too seriously. Good meeting managers never do so. They recognize their limits, only call upon their advisors when necessary and aren’t afraid to laugh a little.

It is in that spirit I offer the view of G. K. Chesterton, another Englishman, who said "I've searched all the parks in all the cities and found no statues of committees.” Keep that observation in mind as you run every meeting. If you are smart enough to know the limits of a meeting, you will accomplish much. One might also bear in mind some of the best advice about dealing with others comes from still another Englishman, Rudyard Kipling, whose poem “If” says it all. You know it already. “If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you...”