‘Q'u

 

my 901‘ (f3
‘ \

 

ifF“’-F>‘/
._'. ":‘v

a" P)“. Jan‘s
_;I 4' \“\V

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN REWRN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 cJCIRE/DateDqundd-pJS

 

A .. _ . ‘ ’Jiki; ” m" IL" .4»

PLAN B PAPER
' Usman, Syed M.

ri_—-—-—-~—-—-—_A1
n

‘3: 1 .

. .\
L’v I 7."
_l

PEOPLES‘ PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY PLANNING

By

Syed M. Usman

In Fulfillment
Urban Planning - 800

Individual Research Project

for

Dr, Sanford S. Farness
School of Urban Planning
a;& Landscape Architecture
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan

Winter, 1977

 

 

Ill

1"

$39.11;).

I

I“!

A C.K N 0 W L E D M E N'T S

My deep appreciation goes to Professor Dr. Sanford S. Harness
in the study of this paper. I have greatly benefitted from his
comments on both substance and style. Special thanks are also due to
Mr. John H. Worth, Citizens Participation Coordinator. City Hall
Lansing, and Mr. Rex L Lamore, Program Assistant, Center for Urban
Affairs Community Development Program, Michigan State University,
lensing, Michigan for providing valuable information media on citizen's
participation in Lansing, Michigan. Finally, I would like to dedicate
this paper to our dearest sister and brother-in-law Zahida and Zafrul
Mullick who participated more than their due share in giving love,
affection and shelter to me and my younger brothers and sister during
the time when we needed most.

To

Zahida and Zafrul Mullick

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

TABL CF COIL? El-FI‘S

INTRODUCTION
HISTORY OF PEOPLES' PARTICIPAIION
1. Different Opinions of PeOples' Participation
2. Evolution of Peoples' Participation in Planning
3. Public Interest and the Planning
'IHE AIRS AND OBJECTIVES OF PEOPLES' PARTICIPATION
1. Aims of Peoples' Participation A
2. Objectives of Peoples' Participation
3. Secondary Consequences of the Aims and Objectives
a. Decentralization'
b. Growth of Political Power

CONDITIOES OF PEOPLES' PARTICIPAIION AS A SOCIAL
INS’I ITU'I I Ch"

1. Framework of Peoples' Participation in Planning
a. Purpose
b. Organization
c. Personnel
d. Procedures
e. Equipment

2. Peoples"Participation in the Development
of Planning Strategy ‘

a. Keane and End
b. Process and Conflict
c. Structure and Power
3. Tower to Influence Planning Strategy.
a. Strategy of Planning for Peoples' Participation
PEOPLES' PARTICIPATION AS A SOCIAL INSIIQUTION ‘
1. Economic and Government Institutions
2. Peoples' Participation Institutionalized
IRPEDINENIS TO PEOPLES' PARTICIPATION
1. Motivation-Cause
2. Leadership—Participation-Past Activities
3. Representativeness-Constituency
u. Purpose-Interest-Perception
5. Political Education
6. Technical'Assistance

Page

CDCDCDVO‘xChUIl-‘NN

\O\O\O\O\O

10
10

1o
11
11
11
11
12
13
13
11+ '
14
11.
15
15
15
15
15

TABL? OF COKIEKIS

VII. EVALUATION OF SCHE PROGRAMS IN HICHIGAN

VIII.
IX.

1. Community Development Program
a. Purpose
b. Structure
0. A Critical Observation
. Formal Structure
. Advisory Boards
a. A Critical Observation
u. Citizens' District Council
a. Requirement
b. Functions
c. A Critical Observation
5. Citizens' Coordinating Committee
a. Functions '
b. A Critical Observation
SUHFARY

REFERENCES CITED

Page

16
16
16
16
17
17
18
18
18
18
.19
19
.19
19
19
21
23

PEOPLES' PARTICIPATION IN COHHUNITY PLANNING

1. INTRODUCTION: The understanding that if peoples' participation is to be

 

successful, planning must develop access to the decision making process for
participation organizations. In this sense, pe0ple participation represents 1
an interest to be equaled with social institutions and their ability to inf:
fluence community planning projects.

Views of peoples' participation today are examined in the light of people
participation in planning and discussed with past and present determinations
of the public interest in planning. Emphasis has been placed upon the public
interest, since adopted plans-must be considered as the articulation of
interests which were able to influence the planning process. .

The frame work for.the examination of people participation as a social ins-
titution is established by the recognition that "politic" is the medium th-
rough which the influence of power and authority of a social institution is
exercised. These are the same influences which determine the public interest
in planning.

The development-of planning strategy for people participation is discussed
in terms of the required components of a social institution, then the over-
all organizational effort and the the preliminary requirement of power and
authority. In further development of people participation as a social ins-
tituion, the objectives and aims of participation are established. The ob-
jectives seek.to set on a broad scale the strategy of people participation
in relation to the planning process, and the aims are established as an
expression of the strategy of people to people participation. Possible
secondary consequences of the aims and objectives are also examined; 1. e.
community control and the development of political power.

Finally, an evalution is made of the practical difficulties in the estab-
lishment of participation as a social institution in planning. The practical
impediments, both internal and external, of the participation effort are
cited, as well as the obstacles the planner must overcome. Some of the
existing programs in Michigan are also evaluated for the provisions they
contain, which are readily adaptable to the organization of people parti-
cipation as a social institution. The task of the develOpment of strategy

is then related to planning and its professionals and society at large.

ll. HISTORY OF PEOPLBS' PARTICIPAT 9;: Almost every community has a few people,

each of whom would like to serve a: vox populi, or the voice of the people.

 

However, the experience tells that significant change in the system occurs
only; when most of the people of the community participate in some way of

that system. . ' I '

1. Different Opinions of Peoples' Participation: It is obvious to many people
that various service and civic clubs could make greater contribution if there
were some coordination among them. As a result, some cooperative patterns are
worked out among them to discuss the projects and to solicit the opinions

of their members in order to reduce friction among dissimilar groups of the
community.

An urban resident view that people participation is a guise for giving spe-
cific neighborhoods or business interests special attention. Whether or not .
this view of people participation in urban renewal planning could change depends
lupon numerous variables; for instance,’federal funds and planning prOgrams

and politics, but, most importantly, the neighborhood group participating.
Wilson (22) states that ”These groups, after all, are usually concerned about
neighborhood, not citywide, problems, and the member's attachment is often

at most to his immediate family and neighbors, not to the community as a whole."
-Rothman (15) explains that hostility is decreased by any activity which leads
members of conflicting groups to identify their own values and life activities.
in individuals of the other group. As a result prejuddices are most likely to
be changed by the imparting of information about the object of prejudice when
concerned people of the group themselves actively participate in gathering the
relevant information.

The response of a planner working with municipal planning agency might be

that people participation occurs when the agency and local government attempt
to inform, involve and advise residents of the various aspects of a planning
program that will directly affect the residents. The planner might also point
out that this task is attempted in the face of a public interest that is conti-
nuingly apathetic. The nature of a response in an urban area would probably-
depend upon a sense of<"community struggle" shapped by such factors as age

and income. These factors could influence an opinion that peoples' participa-
_tion represents a mechanism which is aimed at keeping down the voice and/or
opposition of a community toward a planning program.

According to Burke ( 4 ) the practice of peoples' participation is to involve
peoples in an organiztion in order to prevent anticipated obstructionism. In-
this sense peoples are not considered as a means to achieve better planning
goals nor they are seen as partners in assisting an organization in achieving

its goal; rather they are viewed as potential elements of obstruction or frustra-

tion whose cooperation and sanctirx are found necessary.

It may be observed that peoples? participation isgraught with dangers and
risks Even at best, and when most fully realized, it is precarious, fragile,
vulnerable and easily destroyed or perverted. It is threatening, likely to
invite retaliation, and likely to generate highly explosive controversial
situations.But, it is noted thatpeoples' participation in all its varied
aspects and dimensions has demonstrated that it can make major and unique
contributions. And, therefore, one can conclude that the values of peoples'
participation are such that they outweigh the liabilities, the risks and the
dangers ( 5 ). . A

The response of an urban politician could very well reflect a view that

people participation is grass-roots involvment in the democratic decision-
making process. The politician would probably indicate that this type of
involvment is required to guide the policy formulation of the elected and
appointed decision makers. Etzioni ( 7 ) reasons that peoples' participation

is a distinct type of power structure and manner of involvement on the part

of lower participants. Spiegel ( 16) thinks that probably no other issue is

as vital to the success of solving America's urban crisis than the viable
participation of urban residents in planning neighborhoods and cities in which
they live and the social programs which directly affect them. Thus, citizen
participation is the process that can meaningfully tie programs to people.

The response of a suburbanite might exemplify a view of people participatin

as the ability to participate in local board meetings and public hearings. Yet
because of the relatively small size of many suburban areas and ease of accessi-
bility to the local decision makers, the ability and opportunity to participate
regularly has often gone unused. In vacating this opportunity, the suburbanite
has assumingly placed his confidence with the local elected officials and
decision makers. Lynch ( 12) noted that most people do not want to become
involved in public policy formation beyond the very impersonal (secret) act

of voting. However, he suggeSts that the solution to many urban problems is

the devolution of political power to the neighborhood level.

The purpose of establishing these prevailing1opinions of peoples' participation
is to illustrate recurring factors, which influence an image of peoples parti-
cipation in planning. Generalizing these factors illustrate that.1) there is
no one single Opinion of peoples participation, nor is there an established.
amount of activisim to be associated with any participation effort, 2) different
views of the role of peoples' participation are likely to be found between
pe0ples and administrators of government, and 3) the socio-economic-political
status of groups could represent in itself an opportunity to participate or

the desire to participate. Although these_three statemen are generalizations,

they are set forth here to illustrwte the types of considerations which will
influence almost every planning effort which seeks to either include or exclude
people participation in the decision-making of its planning process.

2. Evolution of Peoples‘ Participation in Planning: The.commonality of planning
and peOples' participation lies in the means by which these goals and objectives
are formulated and the means employed to achieve these aims. To the extent that
planning is not a recognized part of our democratic heritage - "Citizen parti-
cipation is part of our democratic heritage, often procalimed as a means to a
perfect democratic process"( a )..Stated simply, it is viewed as the ultimate
voice in community decision-making. The shortcomings of strict physical planning
evidenced in a need for political economic and social policies, inaddition to
phySical development policies. The need also stressed the deveIOpment of policies
to re-establish forms of participation as a first step toward achieving valid
planning efforts.

The different public interests that do exist were the motivators that led to

the re-evalution of the planning process. A major portion of the motivatiOn

for a modification of the concept of one public interest was also largely due

to the active civil rights movement of the sixties, and the beginnings of
federal development of social policies and planning programs.

Eventually, planners and politicians began to realize the failure of their
planning and its.implementation; and it was pointed out (sometimes forcefully)
that the inability of people to participate in the democratic process was due

to economic, political or racial determinants. Planning itself began to realize
that becauSe of these same restrictions perhaps more than technical competence
of its planning, the confidence in the representation of the different public
interests in the establishment of planning goals, aims and objectives had been
affected by this inability of various sectors to participate.

The various leggislative required some community consensus which were based on
representatives of the community. But this worked without formal representatives
and consensus. This type of "preventive participation" by community residents
also existed in the early days of the urban renewal era+ which were also the
early days of the present issue of the validity and acceptance of the issue

of peoples' participation. .

During the 1920' city planning became increasingly popular. Thus, local planning
on the eve of the great Depression had attained status and elf-identity. Yet, the
relevance of most planning programs to basic urban problems seemed questionable.
According to Walker ( 20) "organization for planning was in the hands of quasi-
independent commissions composed of business executives, realtors, and the high
priests of economic order - lawyers, architects, and engineers." For the most

part, these lay leaders looked upon planning as a peoples' effort, to be"sold" to

recalcitant politicians.

The Depression experience provided an impetus toward a redefinition of local
planning when attention became focused on creating new institutional structures

and coordinating their activities with old ones. Goodman and Freund ( 9 ) observe
that ”in addition to forginenew relationships to municipal government, planners
during the Depression were also broadening the focus of their activities. Social
problems assumed equal stature with physical layout as a legitimate claim on
professional attention. Federal programs were of great assistance in producing

the new emphasis.9 However, the greatest emphasis of federal programs which
related planning to people participation and planning was within the workable '
program of the Housing Act of 1954 ( 17). The importance of this legislation

and reshaping of the planning process is that it gave birth to the concepts of
maximum feasible peOples participation in the federal legislation of the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964 and to widespread citizen participation of the Model Cities
Legislation (18 ). .

Briefly, it is seen that planning and peoples' participation have had some general
parallelisms in their developments. The most important of these parallel is with
respect ot decision-making. It appears that as the planning process developed its
plans more towards people planning and less toward physical planning, its role
became officially adOpted by the government with a corresponding increase in the
size of urban areas. Bellush and Hacsknecht ( 2 ) found that urban revewal programs
have not only opened a vast complex of activities requiring the skills and knowledg
of planners but urban renewal administration calls for participation of the
residents in renewal programs. The law specifies that a community submit a workablc
program for community improvement which must include provisions for peoples'
participation. However, the argument of their article goes on to question whether a
individuals within a community have the necessary prerequisites or resources for
effective participation regardless of their location within the social structure of
the community. I

3. Public Interest and the Planning: According to Davidoff (161)"appr0priate
planning action cannot be prescribed from a position of value, neutrality for
prescritpions are based upon desired objectives." The conclusion drawn from

this is that values are inescapable elements of any rational decision-makig
proceSs. 6

Drawing position on issues of importance into the public arena, which can affect
the general public is often .fefesred politics. If the planning process is to
encourage democratic urban government by its planning efforts, then it must

Operate to include rather than exclude people from participatingtthe process.
"Inclusion means not only permitting the citizen to be heard. It also means

that he be able to become informed about the underlying reasons for planning

preposals, and be able to respond in them in the technical language of the
professional planners ( 5 )."

For planning and for politically estranged peoples, consideration must be given

to how peOple participation in planning can work in a manner that promotes its

own recognition while engaging in a strategy of improving the practice of

planning and participatory democracy. It must further be stated that the pursuit
of a basic framework to promote people participation and access to the decision-
making process is as complex as the human emtoions of the planners, decision-
makers and participants. The problems, conflicts and needed solutions noted

in the history and background of pe0ples' participation indicate that today

the sphere of activity in which the interactions of planning, politics, people
participation and and decision-making occur could be described as the "quasi-public
and political arena" of urban areas.

From a planning standpoint, if it were possible to become convinced that_instituti01
politics, planning and people participation and participatory democracy existed in
a state of equilibrium, then the task of determining what forms and amounts of the
deCision-making process each public interest should have to produce the best

plan, would considerably simplify planning. However in the absence of this condit101
decision makers and planners responsive to institutional influences, to a great
extent, determine the strategy of the planning process. It is on the basis of

this understanding that one can describe what factors, interactions and changes
occur, which ensure that peoples' participation means access to the decisin—making
process and the planning process in the community.

III. THE AIHS AID OBJECTIVE OF PEOPLES'PARTICIPATIOD: So long peoples' participatio'
is seen as social instituion, the aims and objectives are embodied within the
structure of the instituion. However, since people participation is also viewed in
terms of planning and therefore, in a process of decisions and compromise, these
same objectives and aims take on the significant effect of also being viewed as
elements of strategy. I

-It is understood that primary function of peeples participation as a social
institution is the ability to participate. This is seen in the components of.a
social instituion which provide the means for individuals tq participate and

the means for peoples participation to function in an instituional system. The

goal of peeples' participation in this form is in its ability to partake in the
planning process, which assumes the inherent ability to influence decisions. This
requires the incorporation of peoples' participation into the decision-making
process of planning. I

1. Aims of Peoples' Participation: Here the aims are seen as a further statement

of accomplishment to be expected. They are seen asbeing representative of the

specific responsibilities of a socitl instituion toward the persons represented
by a peoples' participation effort.
The aims are given as follows:

5. Providing an opportunity to persons previously excluded from planning process
to present their views.

b.’Io correct the exiSting and future policies which are influenced by the best
intentions of bureaucrats which have not always been definable, predictable,
consistent, workable or realistic.

e. To strenthen the-rights of all persons to have a voice in the planning that
affects them.

Kaplan ( 10) states that the first aim is a key to effective peoples' participation,
because channels of communication are the means for peoples to convert local
aspirations into highly visable, creditable projects that affect the public and
private resource stream. In addition, where past planning has failed by proposing
complex, involved approaches to a problem, time should be allowed to consider
simpleput uncomplicated approaches proposed by persons affected by a problem area.
This is not to exclude a planner's or anyone else's approach for solution, but it
strives to establish a better view and consequences of alternatives offered. Accord—
ing to Perloff and Hanson ( 13) thisaim also promotes pressure upon the organizatir
itself to help develop skills in bargaining and negotiation, gathering of evidence,
use of rules of the game, organization and use of professional and non-professional
help. The second aim provide residents opportunities for dialogue along with a framt
of reference with agencies responsible for public policy. The same agencies may
also utilize this frame or reference towards rethinking their policies and prioritic
with reSpect to knowledge brought to the planning effort by people. Furthermore, thi
aim is also directed toward the federal effort in planning programs. It is described
as reaching into communities in multiple ways through an unbelievable array of
departments and agencies, each assinged categorical tasks impossible to achieve

without a broader framework of reference.
The third aim strengthening of the rights of all personscbes not propose that every

person be personally consulted for every decision to be made in the plannig process,
but they should be able to find out quickly what is going on and be able to make
their opinion known. '

2. Objectives of Peoples' Participation: The most important objectives in the
establishment of a pe0ple participation effort are:

a. To reinforce and strengthen the planning process and programs.

b. To reconsolidate the best concept of public interest.

c. To ensure a durable response of theexisting institutional structure.

In the consideration of the first objective of pe0ples' participation, which is

to reinfOrce and strengthen the planning process and programs, the emphasis of this

cflojective should be seen as feasible action. The planning process and programs are
sytrengthened because, by participation, a better understanding of the total‘
Ixrocess is achieved by all interests. The process and programs are also strengthened,
:since the plan or program is itself a document which has the broadest support and,
'thereby, increases the importance of its implementation. In the same context,
inclusion of all interests in the planning process represents the most practical
achievement of political feasibility of a plan, once it has been brought into

the public arena.

The second objective restresses, in that the benefits derived from a sound
planning process can only be applied to those interests considered in the
evaluation of the public interest. The emphasis is also placed on this objective'
because the attainment of the public interst must be carried on as a means

'of evaluating and providing feedback to the planning process. The third objective
was that of ensuing a durable lasting response of existing institutional structure.
As an institution partaking in the planning process, peoples' participation will
grow in accordance with the responsibilities it assumes, and it must also survive
to assume these re8ponsibilities. ‘

3. Secondary Consequences of the Aims and Objectives: The aims and objectives

as elements of strategy produce secondary achievements, consequences or implications.
The two most importaht secondary effects - decentralization and growth of political
power, assume greater significance to the existing policy makers as they bear
.potential of reducing the effective authorityof the existing influence structure.
a. Decentralization: It means a pattern of organization in which decisions are

made at the local level rather than centrally, but these decisions can be made

by the agents of the central authority without the participation of the local
community. This definition as it applies to peoples' participation clearly

refutes the argument that all that is meant by peoples' participation is the
decentralization of the planning process. When schemes of peoples' participation
are offered under the guise of decentralization, it is the exemplification

of the “critical difference between going through the empty ritual of participa-
tion and having the real power needed to affect the outcome of the process ( 1 )."
In this case, community control means a pattern of organization in which the

~local community has power over decisions. ‘

b. Growth of Political Power: Peoples' participation is community control of

the decisions to be made in the planning process which reflect the desires

of the local residents. The progression of peoples' participation in the planning
toward political development would recieve its stimulus through motivation and

effectiveness. Although the stake of peoples' in planning is not necessarily

material, nor a direct service, it eveals itself in the outcome of the
planning process as an improvement of the living environment.

It must be observed that every decision is a compromise, every structure of

a people participation effort should also represent a compromise. To this

end, it must be recorded that the formation of objectives and aims, which
develop strategy of a people participation effort, must not be rigid. They
must be adaptable to the diverse elements within the participation process
itself, as well as being durable enough to withstand the consequences.of in- .
volvement in the decision-making process in the community.

IV. CONDITIOKS OF PEOPLES'PARTIGIPATION AS A SOCIAL IESTITUTIOM: The peoples'
participation for a planning strategy to utilize the process of peoples"par-
ticipation and to achieve a plan ndevant to the public interest. The discussion
also seeks to establish the practicality of planning, not limited by its tech-
nical competence but by a strateg of feasibility in a decision-making process,
‘whibh is constrained, manipulated and often made ineffective by a closed and
unresponsive urban political process. .

1. Framework of Pegples' Participation in Planning: The purpose of the institution
of pe0ples participation in the planning function is to establish the means to
approach the solving of problems. The problems which in the past did not exist
or cannot presently be solved. In manifesting this motivation, society builds
institution to deal with compromises which arise from the necessity of having
to go on pending a solution. Such institutions with their implied acceptances
gradually take the place of the unsolved problems, establishing what they have
adopted in place of a solution, and so the problem itself is made to disappear,
or atleast appear to have been settled ( £3). .

a. Pumose: The primary purpose is the means for aiding peoples to achieve

their ends with as little intrusion on the part of the instituion itself as
possible.

b. Organization: The organization of an institution consist in the manner in
which a group of persons act together within their preSCribed rules of behavior
and are able to work toward a central purpose. For peOples' participation to

be recognized as a social institution, it cannot simply be in the_form of an
independent group of peoples demanding a share of the action. The organization
of peoples' participation as an institution would not exist were there no reason
to pull its elements together. The reason here is the aim.of the institution
itself, that is the institution in some way must serve the society of which

it is to reemerge as an integral part.

c. Personnel: The personnel of peoples' participation as an institution are

idiose persons who participate in scm- way which affects them. The personnel

of a peoples' participation group possess certain relations among themselves
which they feel ashembers of a structure which has stability and, hence a
reliability beyond their own lives and powers. The description tends to in-.
dicate why loose knit informal groups cannot be viewed as peoples' participation
..and a social institution. The distinction between social groups and social
institutions, as to which should be deemed peoples' participation in planning

is made by the prOperty objectivity. Peoples' participation as a social ins-
titution is a group aim objectified with the aid of some material means of
expression, and objectification occurs with legal establishment.

d. Procedures: The procedures of peoples' participation as an instituion are

the ways in which it carries out the Operations called for by its main function -
particpation. Thus, procedures is the way of both performing, publicizing and
symbolizing the main function of peOples participation. The procedures adopted
by peoples' participation should provide for three distinct effects upon the '
participants. First, institutional procedures are social; and, when an individual
goes through the prescribed motions, he is in effect, incorporating the stmp of
group approval. Secondly, an important result of procedures often consists in

an evolution of an established way of thinking. What this will basically achieve
is the ability to find consensus with group values. Thirdly, the procedures

of people participation will place an individual in a situation of confrontation,
as a member of a group which arrived at a position followed for a rational
consequence - action. _

e. Equipment: The equipment is the substance of an institution. These are
definite means of communication such as telephone, memeograph machines etc which
help to inform rest of the community members.

2. Peonles' Participation in the Development of Planning Strategy: The elements
of peoples' participation as a social institution seek to form is a peoples' effort
that will partake in planning: and, is considered as having:

Its efforts to participate in all stages of the planning process
as its main prgpose and a form of charter.

A resident and recognizable membership.

Defined or developing roles for the membership through which the goals,
values and priority of the organization are expressed.

A.viable spatial, territorial or jurisdictional aspect.

Other aspects, such as equipment or prOperty.
Therefore, the focus is now turned to the arena in which peOples' participation
will emerge, the quasi-public and political arena; where the political process
is the medium of institutional interaction and the outcome of the planning process

is due to the power to influence. The manner and form of peoples' participation

as it emerges can be seen as Means and Ends, Pr: ’:3 and Conflict or Structure

11

and Power.

a. Heans and End: It appearsthat peoples' participation in the planning process
will be fully developed by a planner, either because of the need to achieve

the desired ends of a sector of the public interest or that it represents the
only available means to achieve a project representative of the public interest.
For either reason, the method and the form of peoples' participation in the
planning process must be consistent in its utilization of available means to
achieve the desired ends.' _

b. Process and Conflict: There have been cities where for a variety of reasons
participation in a planning for peeples was in the form of the ritual of attend-
ing meetings, being talked at, proceeding to make decisions where authority

to make decisions or policy wasunclear and not binding in any way. Only because
of the strength of the existing political process in these cities did these
forms become a norm for planning. In these cities, more emphasis is placed

on the public relations of participation - the number of peqle attending meetings,
the amount of paper distributed, publicity in mass media - than the substance and
effect of the dialogue between public officials, planners and peoples (19 ).

c. Sturcture and Power: The establishment of a participation effort, although

it may only consist of representatives from a selected area in a policy or

' advisory capacity, must develop strong governing objectives, procedures and
methods. This is required in order for it to funtion effectively with all government:
agencies and institutions, from which prOposals come or jurisdictions held that
will effect the planning effort. Experience suggests that the interaction between
government and citizens in planning must not be ambiguous. It is the existence

of peoples' participation amongst institutions and the influences and power
wielded in the political process that demands that peoles' participation have

its role and authority known and accepted. Without such an established position,
it cannot be expected that other institutions will account for the presence and
interests of peoples' participation, nor can it be expected that the participatory
function would be willing to account for the interests of other institutions. The
promotion of interaction between peoples' participation and vested interests,
combined with political influences, will also promote the differing positions

on issues to take greater stance of practicality, and greater benefit over the
political expediency. The ability of the planning function to develop acceptable
policies will broaden the potential for compromise, negotiating and bargaining.
Thus, when the final plan is developed, it will reflect a greater reconciliation
of diverse interests and can more readily gain supported public approval.

3. Power to Influence Planning Strategy: It is the development and redistribution

of various forms of power to influence policy, strategies, priorities and decisions

:for those peoples who at present are not included in participation and who

(10 not have access to decision—making that is at the center of participation.

It is a strategy by which all peoples will be able to rejoin the policy-making
functions in determining among other things how information is shared, goals

and policies set, tax resources allocated, programs are operated, and benefits

are parcelled out. It is, also, a strategy for planners and the planning process
when the "lack power, 'the ability to control external and internal environments
and/or to counteract the consequence of imperct control' for there it needs to

win cooperation to achieve the process and to do this the distribution of influences
may have to be altered or fragmented power may have to be collected and bars. .,a
nessed ( 14). For it is "within the structure of institution responsibility
that the planner attempts to articulate values, priorities and programs ( 10}.
The power people have to influence is an exertion of authority to promote interests
is based upon the ultimate consent of the participants. The exercise of authority
in this sense is the promotion of a strategy , but not "to imply that citizen
participation is a single, undifferentiated and overriding strategy, It is more
accurate to speak of several strategies of citizen participation, defined in

terms of given objectives"( 4 ). Thus, the power to influence, the authority

to promote interests and the strategies are the means of achieving participation.
The ability to influence peoples' participation occurs where there is a process of
community decision-making.

h. Strategy of Planning for Peoples' Participation: The planning process and

its functions are performed in an essentially political process. It must begin

when the potential of citizen participation will not be an issue opposed by

other institutions and organized interests. Not later, when these interests

can and will become fully activated by particular issues in program and policy
decisions of the planning effort, since they might affect their main pigpose

or interest. It is time when evegone is for peoples' participation. The power
requirements of peoples' participation at this time are least; it needs only to
obtain a con-cooptable, non-manipulated working position on the first decisive
decision-making body established for the articulation of the public interest.

The management of this position will require less in the way of exposure of

the planner from then on. The power now required of peOples' participation

is the power of stimulation. This is the activation of the main purpose of

peoples' participation as a social institution; it is the purpose of participating.
The first interest of participation will be to prevent its first position from
becoming final, since from this point, peoples' participation will endeavor to
-strengthen its position. Next, it will further promote recognition of itself

amongst the community, and as a non-threatening force of the interests of other

institutions. Thirdly, it must bring into the public arena the first issues

of the planning process, that of the establishment of goals. The success of

these immediate steps will be noted in the ability of the planning process

to beCome the public and political issue it so deserve.

V. PEOPLES' PARTICIPATION AS A SOCIAL INSTITUTION: The peoples' participation

in planning have shown the need examining the institutional forces which mold

the public interests in the planning process. The importance of this effect

is clearly noted, since politics is the medium through which the inluences

of the power and authority of social institution can apply pressure for their
interests in the planning process.’ ‘

The institutions that are most relevant to the planning function are the regulative
institutions, economic and government. These regulative institutions are assigned
importance, since they are the institutions which are responsible for the
functioning of social order. Furthermore, these institutions, to a great extent,
determine the feasibility and the scepe of the planning process. These institutions
also have in the past and will, undoubtedly, in the future influence the decision-
making process at most phases of the planning process.

Additionally, importance is placed upon these institution, since society as a
system Operates in terms of institutional interaction. This interaction is not
always harmonious , for there exists inter-institutional and intra-institutional
conflict. When these conflicts occur, it is obvious that because of the role of
institutions or their politics in the planning, the goals of planning will

suffer. When conflict or dysfunction occurs either in the large social system

or the system that exists on a local level, it is disruptive to planning. The
reason for this is that planning must account for the allocation of interests

and provide means for both arriving at and implementing a plan. ‘

1. Economic and Government Institutions: These regulative institutions are seen

 

as having distinct importance, since they either represent or provide means by
which the recognition of needs, desires, priorities and policies of a community
are defined. Within the planning function, obviously, other institutions retain'
their importance because of their vulnerability to politics. It is in this manner
that the pressure of other institutions can weaken local orientation in a community.
The first and basic function of economic activity is to appropriate and transform
the physical into goodsand to convert the energies and abilities of men and
services, available and usable for the statisfaction of theexistent needs and
contrived wants. This functioning produces a structuring of human behavior and
jproblems related to the production and distribution of goods and services.
(Sovernment institutions are the means for specifically establishing and formally

Inaintaining social order, method, coordination and security among groups and
:1ndividuals. The menas operate through a system of standardized retraints and

1.5!
w

compulsions enforced by public organizations. To ensure and implement government
the society has rules, regulations, laws and ordinances. It must also have an
operating system of agencies to administer to_both the conformity and non-
conformity that enables society to operate. Clearly, with these responsibilities,
government institutions-must have the ability to change their procedures and
regulations: since, they provide social control in a politically organized
society. In addition, the permissiveness, as well as the final effectiveness,

of almost all other institutions rests upon the support given them by the
governmental institutions. The question of governemflnal support for various
other institutions is severely put to a test when it is related to the economic
institution. f

However, there is obviously influence by each regulative institution upon the
actions of the other. The interdependence and functioning of each inStitution

as it influences decision-making structure of.a community is of prime importance
to planning. . I

' 2. Peoples' Participation Institutionalized: The overall justification for
recognizing peOples’ participation as a social institution is that it has been
established that the federal government is committed to a policy that stresses
local initiative and local solutions to local problems. Furthermore, Bloombeng( :3)
observes that the need for a new Social institution exists as long as those

with power to authorize and implement major modifications in existing public and
privateinstitutional policies and practices have tended to conStrain the pressures
for change, if not resist them outright.

VI. IMPEDINEHTS TO PEOPLES' PARTICIPATION: In addition to numerous strategies
‘that have to be developed for peoples' participation in its encounters with
decision makers, and the political and planning process, there will exist other
internal and external impediments to a participation effort.

The common impediments encountered in peoples' participation effort are:

1. Motivation-Cause: The actions of central government to Open channels of
communication with the local residents have resulted in a dilema for people

of not really being able to describe what they can expect in the way of municipal
response to their problems. One of the reason is that very few services provided
by cities for their residents are placed or administered in the neighborhood,
limiting interplay between peoples and their acceptance ( 13). This dilema,
combined with the need for social adjustment.presents a credidibility gap as

to what possible accomplishments could be gained by peoples' participation in
planning. The overcoming of this municipal credibility gap and explanations or
education of the potential effect of planning programs for local residents is

as one of the first impediments-with which the planning function is presented.

2. Leadership-Participation-Past Ac :vities: The response of participation to
planning and planning to participation greatly depend on the leadership of the
participation effort. These leaders become involved in planning and should be
expected to have a stake in the outcome of planning process.

A strategy needs to be devised; which makes other interests respond to the

aims and objectives of those in the participation effort. The strength of
participation with respect to this impediment is in the overall enhancement

of strategy through strong leadership.

3. Representativeness-Constituency: The delineation of areas for representation
land form of the organization be created to consider not only possible physical
boundaries of planning areas, but factors which are of particular interest to
special grouping of residents in the organization such as the elderly, youth

and the minorities ( 15). The form and structure of the organization should

be of choosing of the residents. The responsibility of the planner is to bring
about such a structure that would be to elicit strOng support with the community
for educational and organizational activities. And, this is an essential step in
participatory democracyThe benefit of this activity is to enSure a publicizing
of the rights and responsibilities of those who are going to assume leadership
roles in the organization and the interests of the residents who belong to

the organization. ‘

4. Purpose-Interest-Perception: The ability of the participation effort to
extend activism to all members continually, and to provide them with this
visable form of result, is participation's greatest impediment. The interest

of participation occurs only with progressive and visable results. As it provides
an indication by which to gauge the progress of the participation effort. Infact,
the frame work of peoples' participation presents a relationship which if
restricted to the planning phase it will be of little value (13). Burke (1% )
notes that the residents view participation as "action and not as an organization
that has only its goals, its idealized purpose, to sustain‘interest and create
statisfaction.

5. Political Education: One of the greatest impediments to planning and parti-
cipation in the political context is knowledge. This knwoledge is sought in three
phases. First, the knowledge of distribution of resource, second, how these
-resources will be utilized in the development of strategy and third, the
prediction of political consequenCes with the proposal of various planning
policies.

6. Technical Assistance: The difficulty of this impediment is drawn from two
different types of technical assistance: one is when the people organization
maintaintheir own technical staff and the other is provided by the local govern-

rnent. This is the element of distrurt and it results in a restriction of
‘technical assistance. I
VII. EVALUATION OF SOME PROGRAMS IN HICHIGAN:In ensuring examination of some
jprograms of participation, none of the programs - Community Development (CD),
Advisory Board (AB), Citizen's District Council (CDC), and Citizen's Coordinating
Council(CCC), is individually seen as completely fulfilling the framework
established for impementing peoples' participation as social institution. Instead,
what is revealed by the investigation is various abilities of each structure of
participation which when combined provides the nearest existing working structure
of peoples' participation while fulfilling the requirements of a social institution
and means for access to the decision making-process.
1. Community Development Program: It must be noted that much of the evaluation is
based on the organization and planning phases.
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development has strenously
encouraged citizen involvement process in the planning and implementation of
thiér programs. One of the important aspect of the Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act of 1974 is Citizen Participation. The city of Lansing, Michigan in an '
effort to implement effectively citizens' participation has resolved to supplement
the Federal Regulations through the use of Michigan Act 344 P. A. 19h5 as amended.
The procedures as given under are based on the Regulations and Michigan State
Law as stated earlier. They provide the general framework for the people to
participate in the planning and implementation of the Community DeveIOpment (CD)
Program. For this to occur,the city will certify for each annual grant application.
I a. Purpose: Here the Citizens' Participation is designed to achieve three basic

goals.

1. To provide citizen involvement in the preparation of the annual Community
DeveIOpment Plan and amendments or revisions:

ii.To provide information regarding the amount of funds availabale, the range of
eligible activities, the process of implementing approved activities, and other
important program information;

iii.To provide citizens directly affected by Community DevelOpment activities with
the opportunity to articulate needs, express preferences about project activities.

assist in the development of a detailed plan for the Neighborhood Development
Areas. -

The structure and process will allow for maximum citizen participation and is
designed to encompass all phases of planning and implementation.

b. Structure: The Citizens' Participation structure is deSigned to gain input from
the citizens of Lansing as a whole and from citizen representatives who have member-
ship on formal bgards. The formal board structure developed below will incorporate

76 persons from whom the City will seek input into all Community Developmet Programs.

.17

Irl compliance with the rules and regfilations promulgated by the Federal Government,
true City of Lansing will afford the general citizenry an opportunity to participate
iri the development of each years' application and shall specify and make public
time timing of said opportunities in the Community Development Management Time
Scflaedule. This specificity will, at a minimum, include the dates on which public
liearings are to be held. At these hearings, programfiic information will be disse-
Ininated including the amount of funds available and the range of activities that
Inay be undertaken. All citizens acting as either individuals or as members Of
ggroups, will be invited to articulate their needs and express their Opinions about
'proposed activities. All suggestions and comments received as a result of these
liearings will be transmitted to the Planning Board and other relevant.City depart—
ments for their consideration(6),

Public hearings will also be held to solicit the views of all interested citizens
if there are proposed programatic changes, re-allocation Of funds or the designation
of new activities for locations which would require the submission Of an amendment
to the application.

0. A Critical Observation: The most liakeable aspect of this program with respect
to initiation of peoples' participation was the ability of planners to have the
organizational frameworks for participation in the programs. This event itself
allowed for further expansion and organization activities in a community, especially
in the formation of an organizational structure which promotes indegenous community
leadership and processes.

The Community Development has in a very short time definitely enlivened and caused
some adjustment in the political process in the city. While the Community Developmeni
program rational called for designing prOgram specifically suited to attack
problems identified in the original planning grant applications, there is little
indication that this process took precedent over the cOmpetitive interplay of
interest and objectives of different groups and organizations.

Overall the Community Development Program allows the greatest latitude for the
development of the components of a social institution with its framework for
peoples' participation than any other planning assistance program. It is also

as previously mentioned, recognizes the participation efforts as an institution.

2. Formal Structure: The City of Lansing also solicit input into all phases of

the Community Development program through the establishment of Citizens' Advisory
Councils, which will be representative of the members of community.

1. The Housing and Redevelpment Advisory Board

ii.The Human Resources Advisory Board; and

iii.The Citizens' District Councils which will be formed in each Community
Development District Area. '

iv 'T‘ha (H +i nonc' (Tnnrflinnti na- (Ynmm’l‘ti'na (CNN)

3. Advisory Boards: The Department of Housing and Redevelopment, and the
Department of Human Resources' Advis ry Boards, shall consist of eight (8)
members each. The membership will be appointed by the‘hayor and confirmed

by the City Council. Board members will include four (u) persons serving at
large and one person from each ward. Members shall serve terms as specified

by the Lansing City Council Resolution of May 12, 1975. The Advisory Boards
shall respectively review and consider all housing or human resources projects
using Community Development funds and make recommendations to their respective
departments, the Mayor, the Planning Board, and any other interested City
department, office, or board(6).

 

a. A Critical Observation: AlthOUgh these planning boards do not come any
where near the peoples' participation efforts previously discussed, its
importance is in the extension of government and political influence to
neighborhoods for the purpose of “advising and influencing" the planning
and budget of the central government. Even with the view that this framework
is political, the acknowledgement of this important linkage of neighborhoods
to central government in planning should be noted.
Furthermore, the possibilities of the potential of citizen participation
are greatly enhanced if certain elements of the Community Development Programs
and Neighborhoods Corporations are given the recognition of Peoples' Planning
Boards. ,
4. Citizens' District Council: The City Council has adopted four primary Neighbor-
hood Development Areas (NDA) for Community Development housing and public services
activities. These areas were chosen to concentrate available funds and other
resources to enable maximum impact, given the limited number of dollars avail~
able. To ensure the greatest possible citizen participation and because neighbor—
hoods adjacent to the deveIOpment areas would be affected by any Community
Development activities, expanded areas (peripheral areas) will be drawn to
surround the Development Areas. One Citizen's District Council will be formed
in each of these total areas. Each District Council shall have a total of
fifteen (15) members. The number of people elected or appointed for each
Citizens’ District Council is as follows: ‘ I
Elected from the Neighborhood Development Area
Appointed from the Neighborhood Development Area
Elected from the Peripheral Area
Appointed from the Peripheral Area

KAI—ENG

a. Reouirements: To be eligible for membership on the Citizens' District Council:

 

i. A person must be at least 18 years of age and,

ii. he should reside or own a business or property within the development or
peripheral area.

iii. He must also complete all necessary requirements as enumerated in the
Citizens' District Council Election Procedures. '

iv. All appointments shall be made by the Kayor and confirmed by the
City Council.

'b. Functions: The Citizens' District Councils will review and consider all
projects using Community Development funds in their respective District
Areas. They will make recommendations to the Planning Board, the Mayor and
implementing department(6).

c. A Critical Observation: The notion of Citizen District Council has also

 

been preposed by some as a needed and legitimate form of lOcal government.

Under this proposition, the Citizens' District Council is seen as "the

territorial organization of local authority which can relate people to city

government. This relationship is implicitly achieved when Citizen's District

Council and its self governing-authority is included into the system of

government, Territory is more than merely an efficient princyle of group

formation and common interest.

It further goes on to counter some immediate reactions that city government,

in the course of transfer Of authority to the districts, will seek clear

lines of responsibility and accountability. In addition, the success of

this transfer lies in its ability to cooperatively relate to city government

and politics. .

5. Citizens' Coordinating Council‘:( ".he Citizens' Coordinating Council will be

composed of four members from each Citizens' District Council. The term of

Office of a Citizens' Coordinating Council member shall not exceed his/her

term as a Citizens' District Council member.

a. Functions: The Citizens' Coordinating Council will advise the City on

proposed Community Development policy, make recommendations for new projects,

and promote better relations between the City and the residents of Development

Areas. They shall review and consider all current-and proposed projects and

programs that are funded wholly or partially by Community Development and

assist in coordinating activities between the Office of Community Development

and the Citizens' District Councils. All formal boards and committees will

develop by-laws by which they will be governed. They may form subcommittees

as appropriate to carry out their responsibilities. It will be their respon-

sibility to meet as requested by the Office of Community Development and

at other times as they deem necessary. minutes will be taken by a representative
of the board/council and approved at subsequent meetings. Copies of all

I approved minutes will be kept on file with the Office of Community DevelOpment

and the City Clerks' Office(6)- I

b. A Critical Observation: The main thrust of the Citizens Coordinating Council

on; ".1'l.’uu-————- -.__ —

 

, . hp“... 3'. , " V" .--.«m='~"r' . “-. 1.2-: ¢'~-‘»""1-'.!~.'3' 4 -
4 .F-‘l(-_;“ a (3,". _ . ’7. :~. 0 O “ ‘-,‘.“~.-. 5."! ' .I,‘ 1| 4 .o

.' ( I‘ . ‘.
. .. “' ‘br"~":‘4".'4-‘ ‘ -'. Y
. . - . ~ . . . d‘ > v . . . n
f‘ .. g. ( "fl ._ _ . ”‘2. \_ .- ."fi’" .. «4" \. '. .-.| ...,‘. I7.‘ --_,¢

.- I ~ " . r". ‘ .0 ‘_ V " ' _ ' _' - . "~13 'r \' .. .-’_. ."~' 1|.0f2. ? J" .' .n r} \
. or - t" ‘ ' ‘1. LI: «A ' i‘ .\...~M€~s’-c.~l~?~:d.‘S-$va. 32“.. ’. "6' flew-w“: ~-’ - ' _-. ‘ .

is in the recognition that it has the right to influence planning that is
affecting them.

when taken together, the elements of organization and representation in
Community Development program, the strength for independence fostered by
Advisory Board, Citizens' District Council and Citizens‘ Coordinating Council,
and the acknowledged place of neighborhoodinterests in central government
planning provide most elements for the recognition of citizen participation
as a social institution. Finally, and just as important, is the fact that

all these elements are portions of existing programs, which when combined

can provide access to the decision-making process.

’ sur'numr

A rtnniew_of literature revealed that with peoples' participation, the conflicts
concermung access to decision-making for people in planning process results due
tx>:first, there is both an overall and specific breakdown of the social institut-
icwus which contribute to the decision-making process. Second, there are existing
Irrtterns of influence which tend to exclude groups of peOple from aiding in the
determflxmtion Of the public interest in planning. Finally, there is an apparent
laxflc of planning strategy for planners to use in their attempts to activate
peoples' participation. .

TTuavaims and objeCtives that were established are an expression of the strategy of
'peOples to peoples' participation. The aims and objectives provides for communi-
caticwxfrom persons previously excluded from the planning process; a method for
individuals to approach bureaucracy; and the strengthening of individual rights

in relationship to planning that is intended to affect them. Communication, rights
.and breaking down of bureaucracy are the responsibility of the participation effort.
'They provide for a strengthening of the planning process - a re-establishment of
public interest, and the assurance of a responsiveness of the existing institutional
structure. The burden of assurance and responsibility for the scope of these aims
and objectives can be said to be a function of government. No doubt it still is,
but the lack of activity in providing these assurances and responsibilities has
only impressed those aims fgrggggcghvggoples’ participation effort.

In the pursuit of the fulfillment of these objectives and aims, the ability of

the planner to remain unimplicated in opposition to his employer is made vulner-
able by the possible secondary consequences of the aims and objectives. What appear
as the two most prominent potential secondary consequences of participation is the
issue of community control or decentralization, and the development of political
structure. I

In the examination of the requirements of a planning strategy, which would

provide inclusion of peoples participation in the decision-making process, various
components of a social institution were identified. The organization of peoples'
participation was shown to be the method by which participation serves the society
and its institution for a smooth and more strict adherence to its pflupose. This
organization is also the structure of a social organization for which the planner
adapts strategy and can rely on to be more representative than the other institut-
ional interests that seek to influence the determination of a public interest.
Politics plays a large part in the determination of the public interest, since

it lies between peoples and planning and social institutions. This dysfunction

of social institutions also prompts the emergence of peOples' participation as

a social institution.

With.1flne development of access to decision-making as a priority, planning could
tinnijproceed to develop the best planbased upon goals, objectives and strategy
derfianxi in a framework of participatory democracy. Thus, peoples' participation
as a social institution'will be a catalyst for more institutional reform and
social change.

Tfuajpeoples' participation not only faces resistence from numerous encounters
in«decision making process, but it has to deal with many internal impediments.
Althcnmfli these impediments are cited as being internal to the participation
effknrt, the success for overcoming them is directly linked to a planners'
initiation of participation. The satisfactory application of solutions to these
impediments will rely heavily on a planner's professional abilities, attitudes
and both education and experience. .

'To provide for the examination of a practical application of peoples participation
in terms of political relevance and financial constraints, some selected programs
of participation were reviewed. Each of these programs - Community DevelOpment
Program, Advisory Board, Citizens' District Council and Citizens Coordinating
Committee, were seen as partially fulfilling the framework established for
implementing peoples participation as a social institution. Moreover, it was
indicated that when various aspects of each program were combined, the planning
process is presented with existing participation efforts which partially fulfill

the basic requirements of a social institution and access to the decision-making

process.

.10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

REFERENCES CITED

Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Jour. Am.
Inst. Planners, XXXV(July, issue).pp. 216-224

Bellush, Jewel and Haesknecht, Murray (Ed.). 1967. Planning, Participation
and Urban Renewal-in Urban Renewal: PeOple, Politics and Planning. Doubledaay
& Co., Inc. pp. 278

Bloomerg Jr., Warner and Schmandt. Henry, J. (Ed.). 1968. Power, Poverty and
Urban Policy. Urban Affairs Ann. Rev. Sage Pub. Inc. Calif. V. 2 pp. 313-354.

Burke, Edmund M. 1968. Citizen Participation Strategies. J. Am. Inst. Planners.
XXXIV (Sept., issue). pp. 287-291.

Cahin, Edgar s. and Passett, Berry A..(Ed.). 1971. Citizen Participation:
Effecting Community Change. Praeger Special Studies in US Economic and Social
Development. Community Action Training Institute. Praeger Pub. N. Y.

City of Lansing. 1976. Citizens' Participation Plan For The Community ‘
Development Program (Amended). City of Lansing, State of Mich. (Nov. 1976).

Etzioni, Amitai. 1961. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. Free

Feibleman, James. 1962. The Institutions of Society. CharlesiCl”Thomas Co.
Springfield Ill.

/

Goodman, William I., and Freund, Eric C. (Ed.) 1968. Principles and Practice
of Urban Planning. Internt'l. City Managers' Assoc. Wash. D. C.

Kaplan, Marshall. 1969. Advocacy and Pluraism in Planning. J. Am. Inst. Planners
XXXI (March, 1969). pp. 96-104

Keyes, Langley C. Jr. 1969. The Rehabilitation - Planning Came: A.Study in the
Diversity of Neighborhood. TheHM. I. T. Press Cambridge, hass.

Lynch, Thomas D. (Ed). 1972. A Symposium — Neighborhoods and Citizens Involvemen
Pub. Ad. Rev. v. xxx11(3) pp. 189-223

Perloff, Harvey. 1965. New Directions in Social Planning. Jour. Am. Inst.
Planners. XXXI(Nov. 1965) pp. 297-303

Rein, Martin. 1969. Social Planning: The Search for Legitimacy. J. Am. Inst.
Planners. xxxv (July, 1969) pp. 233-244

Rothman, Jack. 1974. Planning and Organizing for Social Change: Action Principle
from Social Science Research. Columbia Univ. Press. N. Y. pp. 628

Spiegel, Hans B. 8. (Ed). 1968. Citizen Participation in Urban DevelOpment.
Ntl. Inst. App. Beh. Sc. V. I Wash. D. C. pp. 291

24

17’. United States Congress. 195a. Title 1. Housing Act. of 1949 as amended
Sec. 101 Pub. Law 171. 81 ist Congress. H. R. 1450

183. . 1966. Title 1. Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
Development Act of 1966(as .amended) Pub. Law 754 89th Congress, H. R. 3301

15?. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1968. Citizen
Participation in Model Cities. Tech. Ass. Bull. No. 3 flash. D. C.

2C5. walker, Robert, A. 1941. The Planning Function in Urban Government. Univ.
Chic. Press. Chicago, Ill. pp. 143-205

21.. Warren, Ronald L. 1969. Model Cities'First Round: Politics, Planning and
Participation. J. Am. Inst. Planners xxxv (July, 1969) pp. 245-252

221. Wilson, James, Q. 1963. Planning and Politics:Citizen Participation in Urban
Renewal. Jour, Am. Inst. Planners XXIX (Nov. issue) pp. 242-249

. _: g.

at.
OI.

. .. INIVERSITY
1° ~, -. - “G 8. LANDSCAPE

1. ‘ ',. HGAN 48823
a >- '

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Worm;

EAST LANSING. MBHIGAN 4883

IIIIllllllIIIlIllllIllllllIllIIIll

 

31293 02656 8794