Compare and Contrast Agenda 21 and our local Granite State Future program with Soviet Style central planning
This excellent research by D. Niwa should bring home the problems of crony capitalism and loss of rights associated with sustainable cities, and smart growth.
I came across an article about Soviet “comprehensive planning” (see after my note) while searching for “Housing in the U.S.S.R.” by S. Tutuchenko. The latter was cited in Jo Hindman’s “METRO vs. The American Individual” [1].
FYI for those unfamiliar: “Comprehensive planning” is taking place throughout the U.S. (via “sustainable development” (U.N. Agenda 21) — i.e., ICLEI’s sustainable cities/communities, resilient cities, smart growth, urban resilience and adaptation, biodiverse cities, low-carbon cities, resource-efficient cities, smart urban infrastructure, green urban economy, happy & healthy community, blah, blah, blah.) [2][3]
The institutional structure to support comprehensive planning was created with “Metro” or “Metropolitan” (regional and council) governance — a subject Jo Hindman wrote about in articles and books published in the 50’s, 60s, and 70s. K. Maureen Heaton also covered similar issues — ie., involving government restructuring at local, state, and federal levels. (Later I’ll send out some of Hindman’s and Heaton’s works that I’ve been compiling into pdfs so their information will be more easily accessible).
Endnotes:
[1] http://www.unz.org/Pub/AmMercury-1960dec-00012
[2] http://www.iclei.org/our-activities/our-agendas/
[3] Examples–MUST SEE:
. . . Austin [Texas] Comprehensive Plan is Local Agenda 21 in Disguise . . .
South Carolina & Comprehensive Planning:
Programs and Problems of City Planning in the Soviet Union (1963)
by Zigurds L. Zile*
Washington University Law Review, Vol. 1963, Issue 1 Symposium: Land Use Planning
http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3175&context=lawreview
Excerpt from the Introduction (highlights added):
This article traces the forty-five year history of city planning in the Soviet Union. It describes and interprets the landmark events and the periods of progress which have alternated with periods of stagnation and retreat. The focus is on the principal normative acts and the agencies charged with their execution.
Soviet writings, especially those for foreign readers, propagate the notion that truly far-reaching city planning is possible only where private ownership of land is absent, where housing is publicly owned and where a single economic plan directs the national economy, as is the case in the Soviet Union. The same writings imply that Soviet planners have actually learned to control urban growth and are routinely creating individualized cities which blend into their physical environment and reflect the residents’ ethnic and cultural heritage. 1
In fact, there is wide disparity between plans and results. The programs are not perfect, and their realization is beset by problems which have betrayed many an ideal. It should be kept in mind that the Soviet Union is inhabited and governed by human beings. Some of them are competent, imaginative and devoted; others are given to apathy or covet power, recognition and material wealth. Marxist-Leninist ideology has predicted the emergence of “the new Soviet man,” a man free of all unsavory traits, but he is still a fictitious figure. In the meantime, errors due to miscalculation, obstinacy, corruption and other failings are common.
It is true that a number of institutional factors which hamper city planning under market conditions are not found in the Soviet system. For one, the word “planning” does not arouse suspicion in the Soviet Union. On the contrary, planning is presented as a concept central to Soviet life and largely responsible for Soviet achievements. Secondly, the wealth of the country is state owned. It includes land and may, without violating any constitutional principle of inalienable rights, include anything attached to land as well. But, whereas a number of obstacles to comprehensive planning have been removed, many others remain and make themselves felt much the same as elsewhere. However vast and rich is the land of the Soviets, its resources are not superabundant. Some of them appear almost scarce when their immediate availability is set against the competing demands of all sectors of the country. Moreover, it is not for the professional planners to determine when and to what extent a major sector shall be advanced and where development shall be retarded. The making of these fundamental judgments, often without the benefit of open discussion or consultation, is reserved to a relatively small group of political decision-makers who hold the reins of the supreme organs of both the Communist Party and the State. This feature of the decision-making process, a belief in quick results through administrative reshuffling, and a propensity for doctrinal discourse have combined to produce impediments to planning which are peculiarly Soviet. The drastic shifts in high-level policy discourage the planners from formulating reliable long-range plans, the frequent administrative overhauls confound routine work, and the requirement of ideological conformity inhibits discussion of the ends and means. Despite a long history of urban planning, Soviet cities are not picturesque models of purpose and balance.
[Footnotes:]
*Assistant Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin. This study was supported in part by a fellowship from the Law School and the Russian Research Center of Harvard University, and in part by the Graduate Research Committee of the University of Wisconsin from special funds voted by the State Legislature.
1. E.g., Chossudovsky, The Development of Housing in the USSR, U.N. HOUSING AND TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BULL. No. 5, at 81, 88 (ST/SOA/SER.- C/5) (1951. IV. 6) (1951); TUTUCHENKO, HOUSING IN THE U.S.S.R. passim (Moscow 1960).