Democratizing development gets citizens involved

Process leads to more compromise and fewer 'NIMBY' fights

Should development "just happen"? Or should residents of specific neighborhoods or geographic areas be invited to envision just how they'd like to see nearby development proceed over time?

As an alternative to developers calling the tune solo, or city and county officials making sudden "top-down" decisions, new processes of "democratized development" are forming across the United States. The idea is to bring in citizens before plans get set in concrete, to expose them to ranges of alternatives and make sure their input is part of the process.

The process does take time, money and staffing. But by educating citizens and soliciting their ideas, the process leads to compromises and diminishes bitter "NIMBY" (Not In My Back Yard) fights against projects. And it reduces suspicions of political favoritism to politically powerful development interests.

Looking to quality development on Johns Island, the city of Charleston pioneered with just such a citizen consultation model earlier this year. National experts were invited to introduce several exciting new development proposals, and local citizens were invited to respond. The new street layouts and minitown centers envisioned might provide a powerful model for the entire region.

When citizens get their hands on the vital information, more often than not, the results are impressive. Take the recent experience in which Charleston conducted a citizen consultation for East Side blocks in the Cooper Bridge redevelopment area.

The payoff seems to be a plan for a rich new mix of upscale condos, affordable housing units, shops, offices and a new school. There will even be an extension of the bicycle and pedestrian path off the Ravenel Bridge.

Tired industrial stretches on Morrison Drive and East Bay Street also will get a thorough face-lift. The goal, says

Michael Mayer, director of the city's Civic Design Center: "reknitting" so that the areas split by the old bridge footprint "can become a cohesive neighborhood."

Careful developer consultation with "gentrification"-threatened neighborhoods also can pay major dividends. A case in point: local developer Robert Clement's announcement last week that he'd remain a partner in developing a major property between Upper King and Meeting streets, notwithstanding sale of majority ownership to big-time Raleigh and Atlanta developers. Clement's stated reason: close ties he's developed with the local African-American community, which has fears of being pushed out of the area.

Another model is the Charleston region's own Wadmalaw Island. A developer's 1988 plan to put in an 800- to 1,000-acre residential and golf course complex raised big concerns. So the neighbors — shrimpers, old-time residents both black and white — put together a planning committee and created their own zoning ordinance for the island. A decade later, with development pressure mounting again, local residents piled into a bus, went to the county hearing, and persuaded the council to let them keep their zoning and protections.

Democratized processes often lead to more neighborhood and town diversity — not just single-family homes, for example, but garage apartments for seniors or young adults, more access to parks and shops, generous sidewalks. The principle's what counts: encouraging communities to see alternatives, and then have a big hand in the critical decisions.