The process and profession of land use planning, particularly in the public sector, have seemingly reached a nadir in San Diego. The regard in which planning is held, its effectiveness and the satisfaction many of us derive from our careers has eroded. If planners are to restore their role as positive agents in planning and shaping the vision of the future, we must consider how the profession has changed and objectively evaluate and respond to those forces that brought it to its current state.

    It should be undeniable that political and societal forces over which planners have no control are responsible, in substantial part, for the erosion of our role. Although it may be discomforting, it is essential that we examine our own shortcomings and reassess our skills, perspective and attitudes before we can regain the stature and impact the profession had in earlier years.

    Before becoming introspective, however, an overview of those forces beyond our control is appropriate. Over the last decade, regard for and interest in the planner's advice have diminished sharply. Many elected officials, in an effort to be more responsive to their constituencies, have sought to move beyond policy making into administration of planning and permitting. Yet such measures, which may bring government "closer to the people," are arguably inconsistent with objective and effective land use decision making.

    Voting rights litigation has increased the number of jurisdictions in which officials are elected by district rather than at-large. Such enhanced democratization of government has undermined the ability of elected officials to deal with planning issues at a macro-level, precisely where the application of informed planning policies has the greatest impact. It is far easier and safer on election day to have rendered decisions that are popular in the smaller constituency, even where those decisions are inimical to pursuing a grander, region-wide vision.

    Preoccupation with the smallest units of community organization has caused far too much authority to be given to neighborhood groups. While local planning advisory groups play an essential role in defining the critical objectives and policies to be considered by planners, the groups provide little meaningful input at the project level. The role of the professional planners, who are trained to evaluate how individual pieces fit into the larger whole, is rendered inconsequential as the community groups are given a voice so strong as to virtually determine, rather than just advise upon, the outcome of planning and development proposals.

    How can the public planner work with diverse stakeholders to achieve larger-scale objectives when the decision-making process is motivated principally by NIMBYism? The "not-in-my-back-yard" attitude has evolved in the last few years from a tolerable infection in the planning process to a complete take-over of the system. While neighborhoods always have been concerned primarily with issues that most directly affect their immediate living environment, devolution of authority to these groups has created a situation where none is willing to accept its fair share of those necessary but often undesirable uses and facilities that every city or region must accommodate.

    But how have we, as planners, contributed to the decline of our profession? In San Diego this decline followed closely the path of Southern California's economic recession. Economic issues assumed increasing importance in land use decisions, yet planners were slow to recognize the sensitivity that job losses and plant closures would have on policy makers. Instead of proactively seeking a constructive role in which their work could help create the conditions necessary for the ultimate recovery, many public planners made no attitudinal or regulatory adjustments from those of the earlier high-growth era.

    Instead, planners decried the emphasis by decision makers on economic revitalization and insisted that consideration of planning principles receive uncompromising attention. They bemoaned the evolution of their role into "permit facilitators." But in this attitude lies a fundamental error in many planners' perspective. While the guidance adopted in our long-range planning policies is of enormous value, those policies should not take a preeminent role in the decision-making process. The value and merit of adopted planning principles notwithstanding, they alone cannot drive land use decisions.

    It is of little more than academic interest to debate whether planning considerations should be compromised with economic factors. Economic forces that define the value of land, shape the real estate market and influence the impact of business and development decisions can be refined but cannot be fundamentally redirected by planning policies and regulations. Good planning can enhance and focus market forces but can neither create markets that would not otherwise exist nor forestall a compelling market demand. There must be a delicate balance and mutual respect between planning and the market. Rather than shirking an understanding of the economics of land development, planners should ensure that this is an essential and continuing part of their training. To the extent that market forces are understood and appreciated they can be more effectively accommodated in the planning process.

    It has become increasingly apparent in recent years that effective planning, particularly at the regional level, should focus on sustainable development concepts and large-scale resource planning. To the extent that we can develop and implement plans based on such concepts, we can achieve an array of planning and resource management goals. To adopt these plans exerts substantial - but not untenable - pressure on the land development market. Our ability to see these plans adopted and implemented is directly related, however, to how public planners deal with those areas designated to receive development. Where project plans in accepted development areas are processed in a slow and begrudging manner, the development community will pressure elected officials to oppose those cutting-edge planning programs we know to be most valuable. Many planners seem unable to accept as a legitimate professional role that of actively and energetically facilitating development plans in targeted growth areas. Why not act as a cheerleader for development, particularly if it helps to attain greater objectives?

    Frustrated with the difficulty of impacting planning policies at the larger level, many planners instead have become consumed with the insignificant, and then waste their energy niggling over the smallest aspects of land use proposals. Although some changes in a policy or project may result, focus on these inconsequential details causes inordinate delay and cost with an imperceptible benefit to the community. In the process, our credibility with policy makers and the public plummets, and our ability to create effective negotiating relationships with project proponents is lost. Perhaps most damagingly, we are perceived by the policy makers as naysayers and obstructionists.

    An improving local economy and its attendant development pressures require that an enlightened and effective cadre of public planners be prepared to address the challenges ahead. The manner in which they become engaged will determine the success with which we address some of the most pressing issues the region has ever faced.

    Allen M. Jones is a former deputy planning director for the city of San Diego. For the last seven years he has served as planning and land manager for Fenton-Western Properties, a large landowner and developer in San Diego.