Business, Economics and Consulting

The practice of land use planning or its absence is usually blamed as a major culprit for physical and environmental disorder in the community, particularly in the urban place. Yet, as I’ve implied in my previous articles, the formulation and enforcement of a land use plan require a great deal of political will.

As a licensed professional planner, I’ve realized that planning is a political exercise after all. Political, in the sense, that it necessitates a balance between and among competing and complementing interests and uses of land resources, and revolves within a framework of dynamic interconnection between the past, the present and the intended or desired future.

Planning is seen as an exercise to aspire and achieve the ideal state. It is forward-looking and futuristic; always perceived as THE solution of the many problems of the present, even if the present is in itself the result of the ills and mistakes of the past, and the outcome of some actions done by those who came before us.

The expectation for the land use planning profession to bring about order in the city and in the community is so great but, in reality, it can only do so much. It has to content with what are already in place, both figuratively and literally. Relocating people and activities away from hazard-prone areas, for example, would require efforts and money. While the zoning ordinance – the implementing tool of the land use plan – is expected to regulate, control, restrict, prohibit or allow development to happen in various places within the community, it has proven not effective in addressing the persistence of private land owners and land developers to locate and introduce developments in some declared restricted areas. Guided (or misguided) by their interpretation of their development rights coupled with their demonstrated ability and willingness to pay the price and gamble with the risks, these land owners and developers could conveniently use and dispose their lands based on the dictates of the market.

Such obvious inability of the zoning ordinance to control development or to put harmony among the different land using activities stems from the fact that some individual lot owners are more powerful than some pieces of legislation, and that the enforcers of zoning ordinance are mere human beings who have their share of weaknesses and are easily influenced by the glib-tongued business and political giants.

Enforcement of local and zoning ordinances is a function of the local government. The actual use and disposition of land, however, are basically considered the “rights” of individual property owners. Such development rights can, however, be regulated or influenced by the government through the process of expropriation and the adoption of some market-based instruments, which are best played by the national government. This brings us to the point that there are at least 3 major players who could make things happen – the local government, the national government and the private land owners.

Given these, it is now prudent to say that the location of people and activities in restricted areas and the general physical disorder at the local community are not the sole responsibility of the local government, neither was it because of its inability to enact and enforce an acceptable zoning ordinance. “Unbundling” the development rights of the private land owners when location becomes a problem is the greatest challenge to face. It is very sad that local governments are expected to do this “unbundling” task and are challenged every time disaster happens to take on the whole responsibility – accused on their seemingly passive stance on land use planning and zoning – when in fact the private individuals and the national government have equally significant roles in making these events happen. For the private individual land owners, they could help fix the disorder in the community by voluntarily giving up some of their development rights when general welfare, safety and health are at stake. As for the national government, it could revisit its policies and mechanisms, especially on land disposition, titling and ownership. Once a piece of land is awarded and titled to an individual (a role of the national government), the regulation and control of its use (a role of the local government) would become very difficult. This is exactly what is happening to a lot of hazard-prone areas in the country.

Feel free to send tour comments to nic_agustin@yahoo.com.