As we approach a highly consequential election, many progressives like myself are lamenting what seems like a systematic attack by the Democratic Party on the ideals and ideas of leftist politicians and candidates. The lack of ambition in their party platform, as well as the selection of speakers during the Democratic National Convention, makes clear that the priority of the party centers on things eventually returning to the stagnant equilibrium of the years before Trump’s carnage. While it has been a banner year for activist fervor and collective outrage cultivated as a result of this current administration, few could claim (with a straight face) that the last few years have been a boon for social, economic, or built environmental planning for the benefit of communities of color. The strategic installation of incompetent people like Ben Carson in consequential positions made sure of that.
But many of the years prior to the Trump administration weren’t exactly a boon for progressive planning, either. The same unfettered ambition towards capital accumulation and development that facilitates it was the rule, rather than the exception, for the Obama years. The political environment that current establishment liberals are cultivating pays lip service to opportunities for more productive, equity-based planning. But I would bet a bowl of red beans and rice (I just had one. And it slapped.) that it will be back to business as usual under a new democratic administration, perhaps with a few positive signs. Just enough to keep progressives from full-scale revolt.
I know what you think that I’m thinking. Should we give the current administration, which places less regulation on types of development, another chance to do right by communities of color?
Hell no. That’s absolutely absurd. And you look ridiculous for even thinking it.
This still begs the question of how to promote progressive planning priorities under what many of us are hoping will be a democratic administration. Perhaps part of the answer lies in the tweaking of a concept familiar to those who study Critical Race Theory and Stratification Economics: interest convergence. In short, it is the tendency for pursuits that work for the benefit of an underclass to rarely find sufficient traction to be implemented unless others, typically with greater relative power, recognize the utility in it and put their resources behind it as well. This principle is, in many ways, frustrating or even anathema to the ‘little guy’ theory of activism, as it essentially calls for cooperation of groups established within ‘the system’. However, this is the essence of planning activism, as it calls on a coalition to achieve large progressive aims that would otherwise be impossible by small, isolated groups.
Note: I may be a leftist, but I’m not an ideological purist. Dignified sacrifice and small compromise may be necessary to make significant gains, particularly when the welfare of impoverished or marginalized people is at stake.
Even in a politically contentious local government, successful development plans that achieve meaningful social good for vulnerable residents don’t necessarily require the initial sign-off of powerful interests. They would be ambivalent to our endeavors at best, as their vested interest is generally in keeping things the way they are. No, rather than seeking the permission of powerful (non-municipal) interests, a better approach is to make it clear to both the public and to various city stakeholders how more equitable and progressive development can benefit them and their goals, and identifying those stakeholders who would be best equipped and inclined to ally in these endeavors.
This is, unfortunately, easier said than done: even cities that host a diverse and ‘liberal’ population can still cater to the same narrow-focused and lopsided resource allocation models that are seen at larger, demographically segregated regional scales. This also creates a bind for city planners, as many of them are charged not to promote planning interventions, being restricted only to informing the public in their professional capacity. However, with the increasing social/political pressure on cities to adopt more progressive approaches to hot-button issues like policing and affordable housing, even centrist or fiscal conservative-led local governments cannot afford to appear antagonistic to social equity-beneficial development. Particularly when it is sponsored by a coalition of programs and entities that are both representing and working for the benefit of communities of color. This may provide a means by which planners can promote their convictions while still acting in their professional capacity. Even if they are often half-hearted, the inclusion of planning equity standards (such as Seattle’s Racial Equity Initiative) can provide a chisel for planners to gouge holes through official doors long-shut against large-scale, socially beneficial efforts.
Mayors and city councils across much of the political spectrum may be trying to wait out the current moment of upheaval and seismic change. Many hope that taking a placatory knee (with or without Kente cloth) or empty talk about systematic change will be enough to both earn our votes and calm our collective anger. But we can’t continue to patiently fall back on ‘business as usual’ when both our cities and those that govern them have clearly lost interest in serving those who need help the most. Activism means having a long memory but little patience. And being a planner means staying on your grind, knowing how the pieces fit together, and playing the long game while also seizing the momentum whenever you find it. That’s a good combo, especially for affecting meaningful social and built environmental change in our cities.
For those urban interest groups foolish and status quo-protective enough to push back against the avalanche of social change during this historic moment of racial reckoning: It’s a losing battle. And it ain’t a good look, playa.
Fear of a Black Planner 