Christopher Leo

Chris, I agree with, and enjoy many of your postings. I find your blog very helpful and am happy to direct my own students to it. However, in terms of this latest posting, perhaps there is another way of viewing local government and its ability, or lack thereof, to make decisions that foster the social and ecological health of a city. I suggest that, instead of looking at local governments in silos, we place them in the context of local governance. That is, we can view municipal government as one of many actors (including other municipalities, citizens, municipal organizations, networks, and NGOs) operating in partnership in order to address issues of local importance. A national or international municipal network, for example, could accomplish some tasks that appear to be intractable in the hands of a more centralized governing body. Global climate change comes to mind where municipalities have taken action much earlier and arguably more effectively, than senior levels of government.
You rightly point out that “The urban studies literature is rife with examples of city councils being overawed and bamboozled or bullied and sweet-talked into decisions that can endanger both the environment and the viability of cities”. As you know, those arguments historically have been used as a reason for senior levels of government to maintain power and constrain municipal action and authority. Yet, surely you are not suggesting that decision-makers at upper levels of government are not subjected to similar pressures?
Instead of examining public decision-making from a zero-sum perspective, we could consider it in the context of comparative efficiency. Which level of government can most effectively deal with the problem at hand? The principle of subsidiarity would suggest that, in terms of democracy and accountability, decision-making should be pushed down to a level of governance most capable of effectively dealing with an issue. Sometimes provincial or national governments are best suited to take the decision. At other times, however, the local level of government may very well be the best positioned to influence environmental (or other) decision-making, if such decision-making is undertaken in a way that is transparent, and effectively engages relevant communities of interests. One excellent example of such cooperative approaches in the environmental, land use planning arena is that of the Biosphere Reserves program where many individuals and organizations including local governments work cooperatively to protect and sustain valued local ecosystems. At the moment, Canada has 15 such biospheres but the number will continue to grow.
In an era of such complexity, uncertainty, and pressing environmental concerns, we need a system of governance that is responsive, cooperative and adaptable. It is time to revisit our traditional notions about the nature of local governance and recognize that the game has changed, the stakes have changed, and rigid, centralized decision-making will not get us out of the serious environmental difficulties we find ourselves in—globally and locally.

I take your point about environmental issues, where local governments have often taken the initiative and produced more constructive policies than national governments. It's especially worth underlining your point that municipal networks can enhance the effectiveness of local government policy initiatives.

I've argued similarly that more community input into such problem areas as homelessness and immigration settlement could greatly improve outcomes. But I view land use differently. The nub of my argument is that land developers are very big players in the local economy, but only bit players at the national level. Very simply, they are too big to be meaningfully subjected to regulation by local governments. Only a higher level of government can exercise meaningful authority over them.

My view of this issue is based on a number of studies of North American and European urban development issues. I summarize some of this argument in an earlier blog entry, ARE STRONGER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ALWAYS THE ANSWER?, which is accessible at http://blog.uwinnipeg.ca/ChristopherLeo/archives/2008/10/urban_growth_an_1.html. Stay tuned for further development of this argument.

Chris:
I will give you the executive rundown. As being in the position and profession you are in, do you think the Winnipeg City Planners have given any thought to the "designing" of the City of Winnipeg, or do you believe they are just letting the streets of Winnipeg go were the money takes it?

Actually, the bleak reality is that professional planning is an endangered species in Winnipeg. Most professional planners are well aware of the kinds of arguments I make, and many of them agree with me. But Winnipeg's Department of Planning, Property and Development is all about property and development, and devotes only minimal resources to planning. If Winnipeg hired enough planners to perform the planning function properly, and listened to their advice, most of my criticisms would be rendered moot. I'd be the first to applaud.