Politics more influential in development, ex-official says / LJWorld.com

Archive for Monday, February 27, 2006

February 27, 2006

Planning for growth and development in Lawrence is being influenced by politics more than it has been in nearly 30 years, says Linda Finger who recently resigned as the city-county planning director.

"We are in a much more political scene than I have ever experienced here," said Finger in her first interview since she resigned from the department she had worked in 28 years.

Finger resigned as leader of the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Department at the end of the year amid concerns that the city hadn't planned well enough for growth in the northwest area of the community, and generally wasn't being active enough guiding development.

Finger - who served as the director of planning since 1994 - has said she wasn't forced to resign, but did so after being told by city administrators that her future with the city had dimmed.

Last week, Finger said planning in Lawrence and Douglas County had become very difficult because the planning process had become politicized.

"The Planning Commission, the City Commission and the County Commission all have political activists now," Finger said. "That is not the way it always has been. It used to be that one would clearly be the most politically active and the other two would be less so. Now they all see politics as the answer."

The result, Finger said, has been inconsistent messages on where and how growth should occur.

"There are so many moving parts," Finger said. "It is very difficult on staff. It has to be difficult on the private sector, too."

Search for new director

Leaders who are helping guide the search for the next planning director acknowledge the environment.

Mapping the Future

"The man or woman you are recruiting will be in a very difficult position because the two boards (city and county) have strong opinions," County Administrator Craig Weinaug said. "Then you add the Planning Commission to the mix. You have appointed some really strong leaders who have some really strong opinions, and they aren't always the same as the governing bodies.

"It is a partnership that can lead to some really exciting things, but it also can lead to the disintegration of the process."

A major part of Finger's job was to write recommendations for or against specific developments. Planning, city and county commissioners use the recommendations in deciding whether to approve projects. Finger said she never was ordered or told by a commissioner to write her recommendation in a certain way.

But Finger said there were subtle signals sent. She said she had no interest in pointing fingers at particular commissioners, but said there were many times she felt commissioners did not want her honest opinion.

"There were times that you would be in a meeting, and you could tell that they only wanted a response that bettered their argument," Finger said. "They didn't want the whole truth. That was frustrating."

Some current commissioners, though, said Finger and staff members might be misinterpreting tough questions as political pressure.

"I have been in meetings where I get one set of interpretations, and you feel like you need to hear what the other set of interpretations are," City Commissioner Sue Hack said. "You need to hear both sides. That's the tough part about this job. There are many, many decisions that are subject to interpretation."

Political planners

Hack said she agreed with Finger's assessment that the planning process was much different than it was. But Hack said she thought more of the changes had come at the Planning Commission level.

Finger agreed the Planning Commission, which is appointed by city and county commissioners, had taken on a more political feel.

"You'll have planning commissioners today who will tell you they have a constituency," Finger said. "That was a different way of looking at a planning commissioner for me. I'm not saying it is good or bad, but it is different than how it used to be."

What is bad, Finger said, is that several planning commissioners do seem to lack faith in the planning staff. It has become much more common for the Planning Commission to reject staff recommendations, and to scrutinize what generally have been considered technical details best left for trained planning professionals. Planning Commission meetings have frequently become marathon sessions that last more than four hours, and commissioners have had to begin meeting twice monthly.

"Everybody says they want us to plan more like Johnson County, but I can tell you that their planning commissions don't get into that level of detail," Finger said. "I think it comes down to how much commissioners trust and respect staff."

But Finger said people who tried to place all the blame on the Planning Commission weren't correct either.

"Everyone we have on the Planning Commission, while I don't agree with each of them, I do think they are all trying to do a good job," Finger said. "They just have different ideas about how to do it."

And Finger said the development community had played a role in the current state of affairs. She said there were developers in the community who will submit proposals they know don't meet regulations but still try to push through.

"Everybody has a piece in baking this pie," Finger said.

And some commissioners would say that includes Finger. City Commissioner David Schauner said one of the more important qualities the next planning director needs is strong management skills.

"Linda tried to do so much of the day-to-day work it made her job a lot more difficult than it needed to be," Schauner said. "The strong suit of the next person needs to be to direct, supervise and manage the activity of his or her staff."

Community changes

Finger said she believed the community was genuinely looking at a new way to plan. She mentioned efforts to adopt a more proactive annexation policy as a positive sign. She said plans to create a "vision" for the community were good, but said current commissioners needed to realize a process needs to be in place to carry it forward.

"Elected officials are here a short period of time," Finger said. "You have to have someone on staff to carry it forward."

Finger also said she hoped a visioning process would cause the community as a whole to think about making some changes.

"As a community, we never let old battles die," Finger said. "Somebody could be mad about a zoning battle from years ago or about a tree that was cut down years ago, and we hang onto that forever. We are our own worst enemy in that way."

She said she also hoped the community had learned something from the controversy surrounding the city's sewer system and whether it could support additional growth in the northwest part of town. She said the situation clearly showed the need for the city to have someone to ensure all the various plans created by different departments - from utilities to parks and recreation to the planning department - complemented each other. She declined to point fingers at why she thinks that hasn't happened.

One other issue Finger declined to go into detail on was her resignation. She didn't want to comment on whether she had been made a scapegoat for broader problems.

"If I have any regret it is that I know the turmoil that planning staff has been in from all of this," Finger said. "I love all of them. My heart goes out to them. They are still under the stress that I got out from under."

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

27 February 2006
at 4:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

“She said there were developers in the community who will submit proposals they know don't meet regulations but still try to push through.” What's the point? Are they looking for controversy? Commissioners should back the planning staff with a resounding no. If proposals that don't meet regulations receive a yes then a precedent is set for more arm twisting in the future. At times it seems developers become indignant if a project is denied. Perhaps it's arrogance. Why not just go back to the drawing board?

Micro managing from the top can create huge problems for management no question about it. We'll never how many directions that is coming from. Linda Finger was definitely committed to the task.

Set direction. Stick with a plan. Honor zoning regulations.
Keep property taxes in mind. If property taxes are escalating at more than 3%-4% find out why then plan accordingly. Don't exacerbate a situation by forging ahead in the same direction. It may require a moratorium in an area until the situation finds a balancing point.
27 February 2006
at 6:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rhoen (Anonymous) says…

This is certainly comes as no surprise. (If she hadn't gotten the boot, she'd never have been spilling these beans though.)

The reality of the situation is beyond what Ms. Finger describes:

There are developers in Lawrence who will “create” easements, agreements, and other paperwork which they can take to the County Commission for rubber-stamping.

There are lawyers in Lawrence who make it their business to “create” this paperwork for deep-pocket clients who believe themselves to be backwoods Donald-Trump-style subdivision developers.

There are County Commissioners who are willing to accept whatever story these “connected” lawyers concoct and rubber-stamp their applications for building permits without even the show of an investigation into their claims.

There are County employees who will also rubber-stamp any of this “creative” documentation and issue building permits for structures that don't have road frontage, utility easements, or any other valid reason for being built.

Then those same County employees will go to the ends of the earth to defend their decisions and their “private clients'” interests in lieu of the legal rights of other property owners.

That's where the true “art” in this city is of late…
27 February 2006
at 6:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rhoen (Anonymous) says…

TruthLawrence is correct:

It seems as if you were treated less than honorably, Ms. Finger. Why not do a TRUE public service and tell it like it was / is?
27 February 2006
at 8:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

spikey_mcmarbles (Anonymous) says…

Rhoen:

Can you name any specific instances where the zoning office has given permits for buildings that don't merit permits?

I find the employees of the public works department to be above-board in their decision making process. I've butted heads with several of them, and while I haven't necessarily agreed with their decisions, I've found that they listened to my arguments, asked intelligent questions, and had legimate explainations for their actions.
27 February 2006
at 9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

aren't the 'political activists' the same people who are part of the vocal minority who rallied their supporters to come out and win the past two elections? aren't the 'political activists' the anti-growth people, always looking for a reason to stop growth at every turn? aren't the 'political activists' the problem since they were appointed to take over every committee?

the sewer debacle is a few years old, the city commissioners turned a blind eye then acted like they never knew about it, then pressure started being applied so blame had to be leveled at an unelected official.

the commission is more excited about spending money on everything but the failing roads. i guess drivers of fossil fueled vehicles should be punished. just imagine what the roads will be like next year, but it will be fine, some patsy will be brought before the public as the scape goat.

when jerry garcia died, did all the grateful dead followers decide to make lawrence their new home? it sure seems to be this way. perhaps these folks should grab their bongs, pack up their VW microbuses and move to san francisco where they will be welcomed. the people of lawrence are fed up.
27 February 2006
at 10:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

poppies, poppies, poppies……?
27 February 2006
at 10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

It's amazing how you guys can get so worked up on items that likely make up less the 1% of the entire city budget— even if you include roundabouts.

The sewer problems in the NW part of the city are at least a decade in the making, and much of the blame for that is not requiring better planning on the part of developers.

But you'll bitch and moan about being “anti-growth” if the city takes the time to do the new sewer treatment facilities— the largest investment in Lawrence history— the right way, which will avoid repeats of the NW problems.

And the street maintenance is no worse or better than it has ever been. If you want it better than it is, then taxes will need to be raised. But then you can bitch about that, so it's all good for you whiners.

27 February 2006
at 10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

just another bozo is just one of 'them'. the excuse 'it's the developers fault' aint jiving anymore.

….while you're on here, why can't your people stop with the lawsuits and get the SLT built where the Corps of Engineers recommends? imagine all the traffic that would be removed from 23rd street.
27 February 2006
at 10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

You're a real champion whiner, OTTR. You really would have liked the USSR and eastern Europe in the good ole days.
27 February 2006
at 10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

isn't the USSR and eastern Europe what our city leaders want to create? why yes it is, no need to answer. the People's Republic of Lawrence, a socialist progressive island in a sea of sanity.

but thanks for admitting the city leaders knew about the sewer problem years before, though your 10 years sounds a little off.
27 February 2006
at 11:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

If anybody “knew” about this problem, then it wouldn't have been a problem.

Planning and construction for the sewer systems serving the NW took at least a decade, although in your simplistic whiner world, little details like that are best overlooked when there's some whining to be done.

The solutions to the problems in the NW will entail three main ingredients— money, better planning that developers must be required to adhere to, and still more money.
27 February 2006
at 12:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rhoen (Anonymous) says…

Spikey McM — yes.
27 February 2006
at 1:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Bozo, of course city administrators “knew” about the problem. They just let it slide in favor of directing attention and money to “feel good” projects.
27 February 2006
at 2:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dviper (Anonymous) says…

I agree with most statements in the news article, and poster 'lunacydetector' is correct with his assessment of when these political activists started denigrating local government. Maybe we will hear more from Linda later, isn't she staying on with the city until June?

I know from personal experience that the planning commission is definitely politically charged, especially by one particular person, who has made very inappropriate public comments at planning commission meetings. I believe this person was appointed by Rundle a few years ago.

Unfortunately it is not just the city commissioners, who are inept, but senior and middle level city management, as well as the city manager. These people don't know how to run an effective and efficient department, and probably are not even qualified to be a first line manager at Wally World.

Most recently when the city commission approved the 'new urbanism' project at 6th and Wakarusa they showed their political colors. This project would never have been approved if it wasn't a 'new urbanism' project that fit the city commission political ideology. It failed to meet several criteria including Horizon 2020 but was approved anyway. I could go on and on about other political actions by the city commission such as the SLT, ECO2 and Patriot Act Letter but that probably would be better left for a different LJW news article.
27 February 2006
at 2:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

If any administrators “knew” about it, they probably didn't do anything about it because it would be a politically very difficult one to deal with.

As I stated above, the only solutions would be spending more money on larger capacity systems (and who funds that?) or limiting developers to the amount of growth that the existing systems would allow— systems that should have been designed according to growth projections, which I would assume the movers and shakers had some input in developing.

Your “feel good” theory is just too conveniently vague, but with just enough sneer-factor to satisfy the whiners here.

27 February 2006
at 3:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

All this talk about “politics” is pretty silly, really. They have always played a part in city politics— that's what politics is.

What's changed is that there are now mulitiple viewpoints represented, and those who come from the “old school,” are now trying to blame problems that are either decades old or decades in the making (and this includes any problems among administraters or on the staff) on those who are trying to represent what had been very under-represented interests.

But try as you guys might, paving the streets and keeping sewers operating still costs money. Your petty personal attacks on certain commissioners won't change that, nor will electing commissioners who would go back to the same good old boy way of doing bidness that got us 99% of what you're bitching about.
27 February 2006
at 4:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dviper (Anonymous) says…

Bozo: What has changed in the last 4 years is a definite shift towards an anti-growth mindset, unless it fits with a specific ideology such as new urbanism.

The same inept city management has been around for quite a while and needs to be replaced. Not knowing that a potential problem with the sanitary sewer was brewing for years is a good example. Not knowing that millions of gallons of surface water run-off was making its way into the sanitary sewer is another. How many millions of dollars was wasted treating water for years that never should have been in the sanitary sewer?

BTW, where is the data on the sewer flows? Maybe the LJW can look into this and provide the data to the public.

How many millions of dollars has the city wasted on roundabouts and traffic circles, when a few stop signs would have sufficed? How many studies upon studies has the city paid for, and then ignored, or commissioners acted amazed that 40% of retail revenue was leaving Lawrence?

Maybe the citizens of Lawrence need some commissioners who have credible business experience / management qualifications and who will clean out the dead weight in city hall.
27 February 2006
at 10:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Would David Burress be the “politically charged commissioner” you choose not to name? Just a guess, here.
27 February 2006
at 10:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

My guess is based on the 'letters to the editor” that Burress has had published by the LJW.
27 February 2006
at 10:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Bozo, reading your posts elicits this response from me

We need a professional city government. We need a full-time, elected mayor serving a term of a minimum of four years, and commissioners that are elected by precinct.

We must bring an end to the special interest group controlled corruption that is Lawrence government today.
27 February 2006
at 11:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

I've been preaching on this subject for several years and I do so just freaking love it that I am being proven right; a little more right each day.

Yes, I will say, “I told you so!”

And I'm going to merrily gloat as the infrastructure continues to break down and the many failures of the “Progressives” are brought to public scrutiny.

heh, heh

I told you so.

Gee that felt so good..”I told you so.”

Mmmmmmmm.

Thanks.

Marion.
28 February 2006
at 12:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

reasonmclucus (Anonymous) says…

Elected officials need to recognize that in many ways developers are children who suffer from chronic optimism and myopia. They are convinced that whatever they try will be successful and cannot comprehend the needs of the community as a whole. They are often shortsighted and ignore potential problems.

Government has to watch out for these children and prevent them from making messes that taxpayers eventually have to clean up.
31 July 2006
at 1:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

GOPConservative (Anonymous) says…

lunacydetector wants it both ways.

He wants more growth, which means our tax dollars will continue to be caught up in building new roads, schools and other infrastructure to subsidize development, but then he wants existing streets repaired as well.

You can't have it both ways. Either you use our tax dollars to support the needs of the current residents or you use them to subsidize more growth.

As far as I'm concerned, I see absolutely no benefit in continuing to use my tax dollars used to bring in more commuters.

Once they get here, all they do is whine that we taxpayers should subsidize them even more by building a stupid $200 million road so they can save five minutes getting to a place they never should have left in the first place.