Here’s a quick post on the Planning Commission meeting from earlier this month. Weeks ago, someone sent me an email to remind me that not all members of the Planning Commission see things the same way, and that I should not lump them all into the same, small, well-planned and regulated box. Fair enough: as I mentioned once since that reminder, I know that not everyone on the Planning Commission has the same view.
I would like to remind readers, though, that at the latest Planning Commission meeting, one of the board members asked a property owner what sort of plants would be near a proposed building. It was meant as a rational, serious question. It was certainly rational: pondering, enumerating, cataloguing, and classifying are, typically, rational processes, at least at public meetings.
It was, however, hardly serious. I simply do not believe that it should be the concern of our city, or any city, to ponder what sort of shrubs, bushes, etc., a property owner proposes planting. It has become, in many places, the concern of planners, boards, commissions, and regulators.
Communities have thrived for centuries, in America and abroad, without worrying about what sort of plants a property owner uses. The bias of planning is that, almost necessarily, without government regulation there will be unruly, ugly development.
A community with less government regulation would look different from our own. It might seem unruly. I am not convinced it would look worse; I think that it would likely look even better. Not one of the principal, respected architectural styles common in North America came about by government committee; they were the product of creative and talented architects and their patrons. Freedom from municipal regulation will create a different aesthetic. It’s presumptuous to assume that a municipal board would produce a better result than hundreds of talented property owners with an interest in solid, expanding values for their property.