150 likes | 392 Views
The Importance of Change: What’s in it for Local Government and Communities?. Dr Bligh Grant UNE Centre for Local Government. Change? Potentially, lots of it in NSW Local Government Sector. At least 5 major review processes: ‘ Destination 2036 ’ Consultative Reform Process;
E N D
The Importance of Change: What’s in it for Local Government and Communities? Dr Bligh Grant UNE Centre for Local Government
Change? Potentially, lots of it in NSW Local Government Sector At least 5 major review processes: • ‘Destination 2036’ Consultative Reform Process; • Local Government Acts Taskforce to ‘rewrite’ the 1993 Local Government Act (NSW) and the 1988 City of Sydney Act; • Independent Local Government Review Panel; • NSW Planning System Review +Green Paper • NSW Auditor General’s Monitoring Local Government Report
Summary: • All of these potential changes are imposed UPON local government, rather than being initiated BY individual local governments; • Australian local government is generally treated as expedient (or instrumental) rather than political (or ethical) in its own right (historically understandable – see A.J. Brown [2008]!!); • Even claims about local democracy (‘local voice’ + ‘local choice’) are grounded in the allocation of preferences, rather than being about politics, properly conceived.
‘Place-shaping’ + ‘Localism’ as Political Ideologies • Internationally (U.K., derived from the U.S.A.) big push for ‘identity’ or ‘ideational’ politics based on place to be a part of local governance, LEDBY local governments (larger, fiscally empowered local governments) with • Strong leadership and • Devolution of authority to LGs. • Easyto be cynical about this (devolution of authority = cost shifting). • However: Potential has been demonstrated in case studies (as I hope to show...).
Legislative basis for ‘place-shaping’ in Australia • ALG are ‘creatures of statute’ and as such subject to arbitrary reconfiguration + oversight; • HOWEVER: LGB in ALL Australian jurisdictions are now required to produce Community Strategic Plans (i.e.: 10+ year ‘visions’) as an element to complex, inter-jurisdictional planning ‘webs’ (Grant, Dollery + Kortt, 2011); • Interesting inter-jurisdictional comparisons (‘institutional mimesis’, or COPYING); • Again, room to be cynical about this (how much planning is too much?; ‘Tyranny of Community’?)
Case Study: City of Greater Geraldton, WA • One of 7 finalists for the ReinhardMohn Prize (award offered by the Bertelsmann Stiftung, a German philanthropic organisation. ‘Geraldton 2029 and Beyond’ for ‘Vitalising Democracy through Participation’ (157 entries). • Initially, Bligh was EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL about this project: • Had all the hallmarks of an expensive, outsourced community plan; • International consultants employed (e.g.: Charles Landry, author of The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators (2008) • What does creativity have to do with a mining boom??
1. Spatial + Socio-economic Characteristics • Result of two consecutive amalgamations: • City of Geraldton and the Shire of Greenough in 2007; • City of Geraldton-Greenough with the Shire of Mullewa • City of Greater Geraldton in July 2011 – i.e.: ANTI-IDENTITY FORCES • Significant Economic Growth due to mining boom, e.g.: • mean taxable income increased by 14.6% in Geraldton-Greenough and by almost 40% in Mullewa (ABS, 2009/10). • Private sector homes increased by 44.5% in Geraldton-Greenough and a recorded $180,000 or an increase of a factor of 6 in Mullewa (ABS, 2009/10). • Worried about social problems a la The Pilbara
3. Community Engagement in Geraldton 14 other government agencies + members of ‘community’ + media (local paper) + consultants; • Community Champions’ running ‘World Cafes’ • Deliberative Survey Poll • Online deliberation with the City Staff and Community • Participatory Budgeting – Preliminary Phase • Youth Online Involvement • 21st Century Town Hall Meeting • Alignment of the Strategic Plan and the Budget • Community Champions – ‘Open Space Technology’ training for facilitation
4. Strategic Directions (x 10) and Recommendations 1. Welcome and facilitate all sectors of the Community to participate in the City’s cultural life, e.g.: Develop an ‘Ageing Together’ plan; • 2. Deliver access to facilities to support those living in, visiting and working in a creative City, e.g.: Develop an Art Civic Studio for families • 3. Promote the City of Geraldton-Greenough as a ‘City for the Arts’ and as a Regional recreational hub, e.g.: Develop and stage a ‘Windfest’ to celebrate and promote Geraldton’s unique landscape and lifestyle • 4. Diversify the economy, e.g.: Develop a Technology Park
Strategic Directions + Recommendations • 5. Protect Geraldton-Greenough’s distinctive physical character ... Heritage ... and identity, e.g.: engage community members on the planning and design teams for recreational and public spaces • 6. Attract investment by creating live/work zones for artists, e.g.: encourage the development of affordable housing and live/work space for artists and curators • 7. Stimulate trade through cultural tourism, e.g.: develop an Indigenous Cultural Tourist Centre • 8. Attract, facilitate and maximise the benefits of major City events and festivals, e.g.: bid for Australian Travel Writers Association (ASTW) AGM
Strategic Directions + Recommendations • 9. Engage Youth, e.g.: develop a Youth Media Organisation • 10. Connect Creative Rural Communities, e.g.: employ a Rural Community Development Officer who is based rurally who works in collaboration with the other CDOs and in partnership with regional stakeholders • SO WHAT DO WE MAKE OF ALL THIS???
Critical Reflections • Feels very much like a wish list; • Actual outcomes still to be assessed; • Significant transaction costs AND opportunity costs involved; • ‘Dialectic of community engagement’ and ‘tyranny of community’ still represent forceful arguments; • ‘Place-shaping’ in this sense is not an egalitarian model of reform
Generally: • Bell and Hindmoor (2008, 139): • ‘best case’ scenario for CE, where ‘such consultation becomes an on-going dialogue involving mutual learning and accommodation’, is precisely that: a best-case scenario. • Alternatively: • ‘at its worst, CE is tokenistic and creates a sense of betrayal when communities believe that their views have been ignored’. • City of Greater Geraldton’s CE process will, in all probability, fall between these two extremes. • Nevertheless, at its most immediate, the process presented here suggests that community engagement can do much to engendering regionalism from the local level.