In September of 1999,
GVMC conducted 12 focus group sessions (six each with planning commissioners
and elected officials) from six GVMC-defined focus areas. The sessions
were conducted in conjunction with the Blueprint's PIE (Public Information
and Education) committees survey of the metropolitan area. The focus groups
provided insights which will be useful in determining the next step in
subsequent sessions and to appropriately initiate the Blueprint II planning
process
Each of the 90-minute focus
sessions addressed a variety of issues. Among the questions asked were:
How do municipalities currently work together?
Is there a recognition that socio-economic differences in the metro
area are the result of forces which transcend the actions of individual
municipalities?
Is there agreement that concentrated settlement patterns are better
than broad settlement patterns?
Should land owners have more rights in the use of their land than
the general public in a particular area?
Is there receptivity for an oversight, regional planning body to assist
municipalities to deal with their intra and inter municipal issues?
The following summarizes several
core issues raised in the focus sessions:
While there is evidence that some adjacent and neighboring municipalities
meet periodically (in few cases regularly) to discuss common issues,
for the most part municipalities have not created regular venues for
such interaction. There is recognition on the part of most planners
and commissioners that regular discussion and planning is advisable
and mutually beneficial. However, in those instances where municipalities
meet regularly, their apparent bond appears to individuals, rather than
as a result of formal inter-municipal alliances. It is worth underscoring,
however, that most planning commissioners and elected officials see
value in systematic discussion and planning between and among municipalities.
Concerning the issue of concentrated settlement patterns, on the
one hand there is agreement among some that "tighter" patterns
are desirable from the standpoint of minimizing urban sprawl and preserving
ecology. On the other hand, many feel at the mercy of private landowners
and developers. In other words, they feel that their "hands are
tied" in such matters as there are few strict controls over land
sale and development.
Most planners and commissioners have yet to address the interconnectedness
of Grand Rapids' economically disadvantaged and advantaged citizens
with outlying and adjacent municipalities. For example, it is evident
that many Grand Rapids urbanites who have the financial means are tending
to move outward into newer subdivision and rural settings. Particularly
in the case of rural settings, the once farmland or orchard land is
being converted into single family dwellings. While this is an obvious
instance of urban sprawl, these municipalities have yet to come to terms
with their place in dealing with the problem. Even more perplexing is
the connection between their municipalities and the infrastructure of
Grand Rapids. While many seem to understand that improving schools and
services within Grand Rapids may curb urban flight and sprawl, planning
commissioners and elected officials do not yet grasp what, if anything,
they might be able to do about it, or even if they should.
The majority of planners and commissioners seem to be favorably inclined
toward an oversight planning body, one that can help to coalesce municipalities
and to integrate their concerns and problems. However, there is a skepticism
expressed about the nature of such a body. Criticisms were freely expressed
about past failed efforts in the region. In general, there was moderate
to enthusiastic support expressed for GVMC as the body to provide the
proper planning, educational, and integrative momentum for the region.
